The American nation:

THE AMERICAN NATION
A HISTORY

FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES BY ASSOCIATED SCHOLARS

EDITED BY

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ADVISED BY
VARIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIETIES

IN 27 VOLUMES
VOL. 8

THE AMERICAN NATION
A HISTORY

LIST OP AUTHORS AND TITLES

Group I.

Foundations of the Nation

Vol. i European Background of American
History, by Edward Potts Chey-
ney, A.M., Prof. Hist. Univ. of Pa.

" 2 Basis of American History, by
Livingston Farrand, M.D., Prof.
Anthropology Columbia Univ.

" 3 Spain in America, by Edward Gay-
lord Bourne, Ph.D., Prof. Hist.
Yale Univ.

" 4 England in America, by Lyon Gar-
diner Tyler, LL.D., President
William and Mary College.

" 5 Colonial Self - Government, by
Charles McLean Andrews, Ph.D.,
Prof. Hist. Johns Hopkins Univ,

Group II.

Transformation into a Nation

Vol. 6 Provincial America, by Evarts
Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Prof. Hist,
and Dean of College, Univ. of 111.

" 7 France in America, by Reuben
Gold Thwaites, LL.D., Sec. Wis-
consin State Hist. Soc.

Vol. 8 Preliminaries of the Revolution,
by George Elliott Howard, Ph.D.,
Prof. Hist. Univ. of Nebraska.
" 9 The American Revolution, by
Claude Halstead Van Tyne, Ph.D.,

" 10 The Confederation and the Consti-
tution, by Andrew Cunningham
McLaughlin, A.M., Head Prof.
Hist. Univ. of Chicago.

Development of the Nation

Vol. ii The Federalist System, by John
Spencer Bassett, Ph.D., Prof.
Am. Hist. Smith College.

" 12 The Jeffersonian System, by Ed-
ward Channing, Ph.D., Prof. Hist.
Harvard Univ.

" 13 Rise of American Nationality, by
Kendric Charles Babcock, Ph.D.,
Pres. Univ. of Arizona.

" 14 Rise of the New West, by Freder-
ick Jackson Turner, Ph.D., Prof.
Am. Hist. Univ. of Wisconsin.

" 15 Jacksonian Democracy, by Will-
iam MacDonald, LL.D., Prof.
Hist. Brown Univ.

Group IV.

Trial of Nationality

Vol. 16 Slavery and Abolition, by Albert
Bushnell Hart, LL.D., Prof. Hist.
Harvard Univ.

Group III.

Vol. 1 7 Westward Extension, by George
Pierce Garrison, Ph.D., Prof.
Hist. Univ. of Texas.

" 1 8 Parties and Slavery, by Theodore
Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Prof. Am.
Hist. Williams College.

" 19 Causesof the Civil War,by Admiral
French Ensor Chadwick, U.S.N.,
recent Pres. of Naval War Col.

" 20 The Appeal to Arms, by James
Kendall Hosmer, LL.D., recent
Librarian Minneapolis Pub. Lib.

" 21 Outcome of the Civil War, by
James Kendall Hosmer, LL.D., re-
cent Lib. Minneapolis Pub. Lib.

Group V.

National Expansion

Vol. 22 Reconstruction, Political and Eco-
nomic, by William Archibald Dun-
ning, Ph.D., Prof. Hist, and Politi-
cal Philosophy Columbia Univ.

" 23 National Development, by Edwin
Erie Sparks, Ph.D., Prof. Ameri-
can Hist. Univ. of Chicago.

" 24 National Problems, by Davis R.
Dewey, Ph.D., Professor of Eco-
nomics, Mass. Institute of Tech-
nology.

" 25 America as a World Power, by
John H. Latane, Ph.D., Prof.
Hist. Washington and Lee Univ.

" 26 National Ideals Historically
Traced, by Albert Bushnell Hart,
LL.D., Prof. Hist. Harvard Univ.

" 27 Index to the Series, by David
Maydole Matteson, A.M.

COMMITTEES APPOINTED TO ADVISE AND
CONSULT WITH THE EDITOR

The Massachusetts Historical Society

Charles Francis Adams, LL.D., President
Samuel A. Green, M.D., Vice-President
James Ford Rhodes, LL.D., 2d Vice-Preside
Edward Channing, Ph.D., Prof. History Harvard
Univ.

Worthington C. Ford, Chief of Division of MSS.
Library of Congress

The Wisconsin Historical Society

Reuben G. Thwaites, LL.D., Secretary and Super-
intendent

Frederick J. Turner, Ph.D., Prof, of American His-
tory Wisconsin University

James D. Butler, LL.D., formerly Prof. Wisconsin
University

William W. Wight, President

Henry E. Legler, Curator

The Virginia Historical Society

William Gordon McCabe, Litt.D., President

Lyon G. Tyler, LL.D., Pres. of William and Mary

College
Judge David C. Richardson
J. A. C. Chandler, Professor Richmond College
Edward Wilson James

The Texas Historical Society

Judge John Henninger Reagan, President
George P. Garrison, Ph.D., Prof, of History Uni-
versity of Texas
Judge C. W. Raines
Judge Zachary T. Fullmore

/

THE AMERICAN NATION : A HISTORY

VOLUME 8

PRELIMINARIES OF THE
REVOLUTION

i 763-1 775

BY

GEORGE ELLIOTT HOWARD, Ph.D.

PROFESSOR OF INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA

WITH MAPS

NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

Copyright, 1905, by Harper & Brothers.

Printed in the United States of America

B—li

c\ ~) 3

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

Editor's Introduction xiii

Author's Preface xvii

i. The French War Reveals an American

People (1763) 3

11. The British Empire under George III.

(1760-1775) 22

Hi. The Mercantile Colonial System (1660-

||; . 1775) . . . ';>■ 47

iv. The First Protest of Massachusetts (1761) 68

v. The First Protest of Virginia (1758-1763) 84

vi. The First Act for Revenue from the

Colonies (1763-1764) 102

vii. The Menace of the Stamp Act (1764-1765) 121

viii. America's Response to the Stamp Act (1765) 140

ix. The Repeal of the Stamp Act (1766) . . 158

x. The Townshend Revenue Acts (1 766-1 767) 174

xi. First Fruits of the Townshend Acts (1768-

1770) 193

xii. The Anglican Episcopate and the Revolu-

tion (1638-1775) 206

xiii. Institutional Beginnings of the West

(1768-1775) 222

xii CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

xiv. Royal Orders and Committees op Corre-

spondence (1770-1773) 242

xv. The Tea-Party and the Coercive Acts

(1773-1774) 259

xvi. The First Continental Congress (1774) . 280

xvii. The Appeal to Arms (17 74-1 775) .... 296

xviii. The Case of the Loyalists (i 763-1 775) . . 313

xix. Critical Essay on Authorities . . . . 327

MAPS

British Possessions in North America,

1765 (in colors) , facing 4

Designation of Members to General Con-
gresses (1754-1765) 154

Indian Delimitations Made by Indian

Treaties (1763-1770) (in colors). . . 224

Proposed Western Colonies (1763-1775)

(in colors) 230

Designation of Members to General Con-
gresses (1774-1775) 282

British Possessions in North America,

1775 (in colors) 298

Eastern Massachusetts (1775) .... 310

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

FEW periods of American history have been more
written upon than the decade preceding the Rev-
olution. Nevertheless, there is still room for a brief
volume upon the subject ; all the world knows that
the Revolution really began almost fifteen years
before its beginning, because of the efforts of the
British government to give greater unity and stiff-
ness to its colonial system, both as to government
and as to trade with other nations; but the real
motives underlying the uneasiness of the colonies
still need enlightenment.

In the arrangement of The American Nation,
both Greene's Provincial America (vol. VI.) and
Thwaites's France in America (vol. VII.) are in-
troductory to this volume: the one showing the
organization of government against which they
complained, and the other the danger from the
French, the removal of which opened the way for
revolution; the volume is also most closely linked
with Van Tyne's American Revolution (vol. IX.).

Professor Howard opens with two chapters on
the conditions and political standards of the
Americans on their side of the ocean, and of the

xiv EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

British on their side; then follows (chap, iii.)
an account of the system of Navigation Acts as it
then existed, which may well be compared with
chapters i. and xix. of Andrews's Colonial Self-
Government, and chapters iii. and xviii. of Greene's
Provincial America. The two preliminary episodes
of the Parson's Cause and Writs of Assistance
(chaps, iv. and v.) are followed by a discussion of
the Sugar Act of 1766, which Professor Howard
considers the starting-point of the Revolution. In
three chapters (vii., viii., ix.) the Stamp Act, Stamp
Act Congress, and repeal are considered; in two
more chapters the Townshend Acts and the attempts
to enforce them by the military are described.

The narrative then gives way to an indispensable
discussion of the Anglican Episcopate, which fits
into Greene's discussion of the same subject in an
earlier volume (Provincial America, chap. vi.). The
first appearance of the West as a distinct factor
in national life is described in chapter xiii. and will
be resumed in Van Tyne's American Revolution
(chap, xv.) ; and, in a later stage, in McLaughlin's
Confederation and Constitution (vol. X., chaps, vii.,

... V

m).

The final steps leading up to revolution, from
1773 to 1775, occupy chapters xiv. to xvii. The
last chapter of text is the argument of the loyalists,
a strong presentation of the reasons which led so
many thousand Americans to adhere to the mother-
country. It should be compared with Van Tyne's

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

American Revolution (chap. xiv.). The Critical
Essay on Authorities is conveniently classified by
subjects which do not follow strictly the order of
the chapters.

The aim of the volume is to show what the issue
really was and why people who had lived under
one general government for a century and a half
could no longer get on together. Professor Howard's
investigations bring him to about the same point as
those of earlier writers — viz., that war was inevitable
because of long antecedent causes tending to inde-
pendence, and was precipitated by the failure of
the home government to understand either the sit-
uation or the American people ; but that it was not
a result of direct and conscious oppression. Yet
this fresh study of the evidence results in a clearer
view of the difficulties of the imperial problem;
and brings out in sharper relief the reasons for the
apparent paradox that the freest people then on
earth insisted on and deserved a larger freedom.

VOL. VIII. 2

I

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

THE struggle between the English colonies and
the parent state resulting in the recognition
of a new and dominant nation in the western hemi-
sphere is justly regarded as a revolution. Its
preliminaries cover the twelve years between the
peace of Paris in 1763 and the appeal to arms in
1775; but its causes are more remote. Up to the
very beginning of hostilities the colonists disclaimed
any desire for independence ; yet it seems clear to us
that unconsciously they had long been preparing
themselves for that event. The origin of the
Revolution is coeval with the earliest dawning of a
sentiment of American union. Its assigned causes
are, indeed, mainly economic and political. It was
not a social revolution in the conventional sense;
yet it was profoundly sociological in character.
The conditions were favorable to the rise of a more
united and a freer society in America ; but this was
hindered by the inertia of a colonial system which
the American people had outgrown. Hence it is a
grave mistake to see in the struggle between Great
Britain and her colonies merely a useless contest
provoked by the fanaticism, the ambition, or the

xvii

xviii

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

stupidity of a few leaders on either side. A rev-
olution cannot be explained on the basis of per-
sonal influences alone.

To the friends who have aided me in many ways
during the preparation of this book I desire to con-
vey my grateful thanks. The maps showing the en-
virons of Boston and the Indian delimitations were
prepared by Mr. David M. Matteson, of Cambridge.
For the other maps I am mainly indebted to the
skill and research of Professor Clark Edmund
Persinger, of the University of Nebraska. Pro-
fessor George Henry Alden, of the University of
Washington, has generously placed at my disposal
the maps in his New Governments West of the Alle-
ghanies before 1780; and for like permission to make
use of the map in his Western State-Making in the
Revolutionary Era, I am under obligations to Pro-
fessor Frederick J. Turner, of the University of Wis-
consin. I have had the privilege of reading in
manuscript the enlightening dissertation on The
Foreign Commerce of the United States during the
Confederation, by Professor Guy H. Roberts, of
Bowdoin College.

George Elliott Howard.

%

PRELIMINARIES OF THE
REVOLUTION

PRELIMINARIES OF THE

REVOLUTION

CHAPTER I

THE FRENCH WAR REVEALS AN AMERICAN

PEOPLE

(1763)

THE Seven Years* War left Great Britain the
most powerful state on the globe, and heralded
the rise of an English nation in the western hemi-
sphere. Scarcely any other military struggle has
produced so many events of decisive interest to
mankind. At Rossbach Frederick achieved for
Prussia the headship of the German people, thus
in effect laying the basis of the present imperial
union ; at Plassey Clive gained for England an
empire in the East, whose borders are still expand-
ing; at Quebec the victory of Wolfe won for the
English race, though not finally for England, the
political leadership of the western continents.

In a very real sense the year 1763 may be taken
as marking the beginning of the American Revolu-

3

4 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1690

tion. The causes of that event are indeed far-
reaching. They are as old as the colonial system
itself. In many ways for more than a century,
although they knew it not, the people of the thirteen
provinces were being schooled and disciplined for
their part in it. Almost in spite of themselves they
were becoming moulded into one social body, an
American society, which with the attainment of
self -consciousness must inevitably demand a larger
and freer, if not an entirely independent life. Their
social consciousness was, in fact, stirred by the ex-
periences of the war; and thereafter it was swiftly
quickened and nourished by the blunders of the
imperial administration.1

Looked at in this way, the revolutionary struggle
reaches over a score of years, beginning with the
peace of Paris and ending with the treaty of 1783.
It comprises two well-defined stages. The first
stage, closing with Washington's entrance upon
command of the Continental army in July, 1775, is
chiefly devoted to debate, to a contest of arguments,
called out by the successive incidents of the halting
ministerial policy, and occasionally interrupted by
acts of popular or military violence. The second
stage, except for the interval following the battle
of Yorktown, is filled mainly with the agony of
organized warfare, the clash of arms. With the
history of the twelve years constituting the first of

1 For the condition and organization of the colonies, see
Greene, Provincial America {American Nation, VI.), chap. xii.

1725] AMERICAN PEOPLE

5

these stages, it is the purpose of this book to deal,
only now and then, as in the case of the writs of
assistance or the navigation laws, reaching back
to events of earlier origin.

For the colonists the moral and social results of
the French and Indian War were very great. In
the first place, they were relieved from the dread of
a foreign foe whose garrisons, stretching in irregu-
lar line from Quebec to New Orleans, had hemmed
them in and checked their westward march. With
the cession of the Floridas to England, the Spanish
rival was thrust farther from their doors.1 The
fall of the French dominion, the weakening of the
arm of Spain, and the failure of Pontiac had much
lessened the peril from the red race. With the
French or Spanish pioneers the English colonists
had not feared to compete; nor did they feel them-
selves unequal to dealing with the Indian tribes.
But there was always the anxiety lest the toma-
hawk and the scalping - knife might be raised
through intrigues of a white enemy; and they
deemed it just that the imperial government
should protect them from the encroachments of
a foreign soldiery.

That the presence of the French was believed to
be a very real danger is revealed by abundant
evidence covering the whole period from the sur-
prise of Schenectady, in 1690, to the end of the

1 For the French and Indian War, see Thwaites, France in
America {American Nation, VII.), chaps, x.-xvi.

6 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1709

war.1 Thus, in 1709, Jeremiah Dummer, who the
next year began his term of service as agent of
Massachusetts in London, "shows how early and
passionate among the English colonies in America
was the dread of the American power of France,"
declaring "that those colonies can never be easy or
happy ' whilst the French are masters of Canada.' "2
The effect of the French settlements, reports
Lieutenant-Governor Wentworth, of New Hamp-
shire, to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, in
1 73 1, "is that the Indians are frequently instigated
and influenced by them to disturb the peace and
quiet of this province, we having been often put to
a vast expense both of blood and treasure, to de-
fend ourselves against their cruel outrages/'3 At
the close of the war the American colonists found
themselves freed from this long-standing menace.

Moreover, their imaginations were quickened and
their mental horizon was expanded by the geo-
graphical results. For now, with the exception of
the island of New Orleans, an imperial domain
stretching from the Arctic to the Gulf, and from the
Atlantic to the Mississippi, concealing illimitable
riches within its mountains and its plains, was

1 See Monseignat's letter to Madame de Maintenon, in Hart,
Contemporaries, II., 337.

2 Dummer, Letter to a Noble Lord, 4, quoted by Tyler, Hist,
of Am. Lit., II., 119.

3 N. H. Hist. Soc., Collections, I., 227-230. Regarding the
similar danger from the French on the Mississippi, see Spotts-
wood, in Va. Hist, Soc., Collections, new series, II., 295.

1760] AMERICAN PEOPLE

7

thrown open to the industrial conquest of the
English race. The enlarged view caused by this
new environment is a fact of vast significance in
estimating the forces underlying the contest for
American independence. The colonist had grown
in self-reliance, in mental stature. A greater des-
tiny seemed to await him, and the friends of pro-
vincial subjection were already jealous of the possi-
ble consequences of his wider ambition. Before the
war the Swedish traveller, Peter Kalm, writing in
1748, records the views of this class. It is "of great
advantage to the crown of England," he says, "that
the North American colonies are near a country,
under the government of the French, like Canada.
There is reason to believe that the king never was
earnest in his attempts to expel the French from
their possessions there; though it might have been
done with little difficulty. For the English colonies
in this part of the world have encreased so much in
their number of inhabitants, and in their riches,
that they almost vie with Old England." "I have
been told" that "in the space of thirty or fifty
years " they " would be able to form a state by them-
selves, entirely independent" of the mother-coun-
try.1 For like reasons, in 1760, when peace seemed
near at hand, the ministry were urged to yield
Canada rather than Guadeloupe to the French.
According to William Burke, a friend and kinsman
of the celebrated statesman, Canada in French hands

1 Kalm, Travels, I., 262-265.

8 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

was necessary to preserve the "balance of power in
America." If "the people of our colonies," he in-
sisted, " find no check from Canada, they will extend
themselves almost without bounds into the inland
parts. They will increase infinitely from all causes.
What the consequences will be to have a numerous,
hardy, independent people, possessed of a strong
country, communicating little or not at all with
England," he leaves to "conjecture."1

Replying to Burke's pamphlet, Franklin, then rep-
resenting Pennsylvania in London, with character-
istic eloquence and force presented the other side of
the case in 1760. With Canada in English hands,
"our planters will no longer be massacred by the
Indians/ who must then depend upon us for
supplies; and in the event of another war with
France we shall not be put "to the immense ex-
pense of defending that long - extended frontier."
True, the colonists would thrive and multiply. In
a century, at the present rate of increase, " British
subjects on that side the water" would be "more
numerous than they now are on this." But with
right treatment their growing power would not
affect their allegiance. They have different gov-
ernments, laws, interests, and even manners. "Their
jealousy of each other is so great, that however
necessary a union of the colonies has long been,
for their common defence and security against their

1 Burke, Remarks on the Letter Addressed to Two Great Men,
30-

1763] AMERICAN PEOPLE

9

enemies, and how sensible soever each colony has
been of that necessity," such a union has thus far
been impossible. If not against the French and
the Indians, "can it reasonably be supposed there
is any danger of their uniting against their own
nation, which protects and encourages them, with
which they have so many connexions and ties of
blood, interest, and affection, and which, it is well
known, they all love much more than they love one
another?" While "the government is mild and
just, while important religious and civil rights are
secure, such subjects will be dutiful and obedient.
The waves do not rise but when the winds blow." On
the other hand, nothing is more likely to render
"substantial" the "visionary danger of indepen-
dence" than the heartless exposure of the colonists
again to the "neighborhood of foreigners at enmity"
with their sovereign. Will they then "have reason
to consider themselves any longer as subjects and
children, when they find their cruel enemies hallooed
upon them by the country from whence they
sprung ; the government that owes them protection,
as it requires their obedience ? ' ' Should the ministry
take this course, it "would prevent the assuring to
the British name and nation a stability and per-
manency that no man acquainted with history
durst have hoped for till our American possessions
opened the pleasing prospect."1 Pitt agreed with

1 Franklin, Interest of Great Britain Considered, with Regard
to Her Colonies, in Works (Bigelow's ed.), III., 83.

io PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1698

Franklin, taking a course consistent with broad
statesmanship and generous humanism.

In another way the war had prepared the colonists
for the approaching contest. They had gained
military experience and become aware of their
own military strength. Battling side by side with
the British regulars against the veterans of France,
they had won confidence in themselves. They had
tested their own fighting capacity, and had learned
the need of modifying European tactics and Euro-
pean methods to suit the exigencies of frontier war-
fare. Moreover, at the Revolution the colonies
possessed some officers and men who had been
trained in actual warfare.

Most significant of all the results of the war was
its influence in forcing out the already nascent
sentiment of social unity. Founded at different
times, under separate charters, and for diverse mo-
tives, the American provinces were in fact thirteen
distinct societies. Except for their allegiance to a
common sovereign, they were in theory as inde-
pendent as if they had been foreign states. They
waged commercial and even physical war upon each
other. Political, economic, and religious antago-
nisms hindered their healthier growth. Social isola-
tion is the mark of colonial as well as of Hellenic
history ; and in the one case it was nearly as harmful
as in the other. Its evils were early perceived ; and
for more than a century before the outbreak of
the French war one finds occasional experiments,

1763] AMERICAN PEOPLE

11

plans, or opinions which give expression to the
desire for a political union of all or a part of the
colonies. Such, in 1643, was the New England
Confederation, which, in spite of its defects, served
well for a time the needs of its members.1 Even
the hated general government of Andros taught
its adversaries an unintended lesson which bore
fruit after many days.2 The value of federation
was suggested, while the arguments, the methods,
and the spirit with which the policy of Grenville
and Townshend was resisted were then antici-
pated.3

From this time onward, as population grew, busi-
ness expanded, and the final struggle with France
drew near, the need of a common colonial govern-
ment was felt more and more keenly by thoughtful
men.4 As early as 1698 William Penn prepared
"A brief and plain scheme how the English colonies
in the North parts of America . . . may be made more
useful to the crown and one another's peace and
safety with an universal concurrence. " Under the
presidency of a royal commissioner a representative
congress is to assemble at least once in two years.
It is to be composed of two " appointed and stated

1 Tyler, England in America {American Nation, IV.), chap,
xviii.

2 Andrews, Colonial Self -Government {American Nation, V.),
chaps, xvi., xvii.

3 Letter of "Phileroy Philopatris," Colonial Papers, 1683,
December 14, quoted by Doyle, Puritan Colonies, II., 223.

4 Greene, Provincial America {American Nation, VI.), chap. xi.

12 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1701

deputies" from each province; and its "business
shall be to hear and adjust all matters of complaint
or difference between province and province," in-
cluding absconding debtors, extradition, commerce,
and ways and means for securing the safety and
united action of the colonies against the public
enemies.1 In the same year Charles Davenant,
praising this "constitution," suggests the creation
of a " national assembly " to exercise powers simi-
lar to those assigned by Penn to his "congress."
"Though he advocated an exercise of the full power
of the mother country over the colonies," says
Frothingham,2 "yet he urged also a principle con-
stantly put forth by them ; namely, that, in any gov-
ernment that might be established over them, care
should be taken to observe sacredly the charters
and terms under which the emigrants, at the hazard
of their lives, had effected discoveries and settle-
ments" ; and " one of his liberal remarks is, that the
stronger and greater the colonies grow, 'the more
they would benefit the crown and the kingdom;
and nothing but such an arbitrary power as shall
make them desperate can bring them to rebel.'"
A "Virginian," writing in 1701, criticises the
schemes of Penn and Davenant, urging that the
colonies ought to have, not an equal number of
deputies in the general assembly, but a representa-

1 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 296.

2 Davenant, Discourse on the Plantation Trade, quoted in
Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 11 1.

1754] AMERICAN PEOPLE

13

tion better apportioned according to their respective
numbers and resources.1

In 1722 Daniel Coxe, anticipating some features
of Franklin's plan, recommended that " all the col-
onies appertaining to the crown of Great Britain
on the northern continent of America, be united
in a legal, regular, and firm establishment," under a
"lieutenant, or supreme governour," and with a
representative assembly for control of its finances.2
Plans more favorable to the prerogative were also
suggested from time to time, as by Robert Living-
ston in 1 701, and by Archibald Kennedy in 175 2. 3
Occasional congresses of governors and other of-
ficials for conference with the Indians likewise did
something to extend intercolonial acquaintance and
to kindle the slowly dawning perception of the es-
sential solidarity of provincial interests throughout
the continent.4

Finally, in 1754, the famous Plan of Union drafted
by Franklin was actually accepted by the Albany
convention. This constitution for a united Amer-
ican people, proposed by a representative conven-
tion, is a new and significant event in the history

1 An Essay upon the Government of the English Plantations,
69, summarized by Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 109-112.

3 Coxe, Description of the English Province of Carolana,
Preface.

3 Livingston, in N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 874; Kennedy,
Importance of the Friendship of the Indians, 7-15, 38; Frothing-
ham, Rise of the Republic, 116; part of the texts in American
History Leaflets, No. 14.

* Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, chap. iv.

VOL. VIII. — 3

14 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1754

of political science.1 Among its provisions are some
far wiser than the corresponding ones in the Articles
of Confederation, of which it is the prototype. It
never became a law. In America it was rejected as
allowing " too much to prerogative, " and in England
" as having too much weight in the democratic part."

The assemblies did well to decline an instrument
which by one of its provisions, not in Franklin's
original draft, would have yielded to Parliament
the right to change their local institutions. Yet in
its failure Franklin's plan was a lasting success.
The educational value of an earnest debate on the
great problem of American union, taking place
simultaneously throughout the thirteen colonies,
should not be underestimated. At the very out-
break of the war a problem, which thus far for a
few leaders had possessed mainly a literary or
speculative interest, had definitively entered the
field of practical politics. Still the hope of federa-
tion would have to flower before it could yield
actual fruit. The heart of the plain people had
not yet been touched. This is what the war
effected. The experiences of the war called into
being a real though inchoate popular opinion re-
garding the social destiny of the English race in
America — a rudimentary national sentiment which
impending events would speedily force into full
and unquenchable life.

Hitherto there had not been, and under ordinary

1 Thwaites, France in America {American Nation, VII.) , chap. x.

1763] AMERICAN PEOPLE

15

circumstances there could hardly be, much inter-
communication. Travel was then a serious business.
By stage, four days were needed to go from Boston
to New York, and three days more to reach Phila-
delphia. Even the "flying-machine," put on the
road in 1766, required two days for the trip between
the last-named cities. The newspapers were few,
dear, and scant of information. In fair weather,
to spread news throughout the colonies took three
weeks, and much longer than that in winter. Few
of the wealthy or public men of the south had
ever seen those of the north. The common people
of one colony had the vaguest notions regarding
their neighbors in another, and often their intense
provincialism was mingled with bitter prejudices
bred by earlier antagonisms or rivalries. The war
in many ways broke down the barriers and got
people to know each other. Legislatures were
called upon to discuss the same or similar measures.
Men from Virginia or Pennsylvania met those of
Massachusetts or Connecticut in council or on the
march and by the camp-fire, and they succored one
another in battle. The money and troops sent to the
north by the southern and less exposed colonies bred
" mutual good-will, ' ' and the colonial officers " forgot ' '
their "jealousies" in the contempt shown for them
by the British subalterns. The private soldiers, too,
resented the patronizing airs of the king's regulars.1

1 Andrews, United States, I., 158; Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist,
of New Eng., II., 668.

16 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1754

Negatively, in still another way the colonies were
being drawn together and apart from the British
government. For it was precisely at this time that
alarm was caused by the schemes of the ministry
and the suggestions of governors like Shirley of
Massachusetts, Bernard of New Jersey, and Din-
widdie of Virginia, for raising a war revenue on the
colonies and overriding their chartered rights. In
1754, as later in 1756 and 1760, the " British minis-
try heard one general clamor from men in office for
taxation by act of parliament."1 The governors
were ordered to provide for quartering troops on
the colonists and for impressing carriages and pro-
visions for their support.2 Almost everywhere bit-
ter disputes arose between the assemblies and the
executive bodies. The proprietors of Pennsylvania
selfishly declined to share with the people the bur-
den of extra taxation, leading to a prolonged
struggle, in which in 1760 the assembly was victori-
ous. In Maryland a similar contest with the pro-
prietor was carried on.3

Under Newcastle as the nominal head, suggests
a recent English scholar, "the two ministers who
were practically responsible for the disasters which
brought Pitt into office were Halifax, as president

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), II., 408-418, 443-449,

529-533-

2 See orders of 1758, in Hubert Hall, "Chatham's Colonial
Policy," in Ant. Hist. Review, V., 664.

3 Black, Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., No. 7).

1760] AMERICAN PEOPLE 17

of the Board of Trade and Plantations, and Sir
Thomas Robinson, as the departmental secretary
of state. If we add to these military and naval ad-
visers as pedantic as Ligonier and Anson, command-
ers such as Braddock and Loudoun, governors of
the type of Shirley, and the whole crew of brigadiers
and post-captains, attorneys-general, vice-admirals,
and revenue officers, all prepared to take their
cue from the sententious loyalty which pervaded the
optimist despatches from Whitehall, we shall not be
surprised if 'the just grievances of his Majesty's
loyal and faithful subjects' waited in vain for
redress."1 Nor need we wonder if a nagging and
hectoring policy, just when there was supreme need
of conciliation, should have aided in awakening the
social consciousness of America.

Governor Shirley, indeed, in 1755, did not sym-
pathize with the "apprehensions" that the colonies
"will in time unite to throw off their dependency
upon their mother country, and set up one general
government among themselves." Their different
constitutions, clashing interests, and opposite tem-
pers made "such a coalition" seem "highly im-
probable." "At all events, they could not main-
tain such an independency without a strong naval
force, which it must forever be in the power of
Great Britain to hinder them from having"; and
he makes the sinister suggestion, that "whilst his

1 Hubert Hall, "Chatham's Colonial Policy," in Am. Hist.
Review, V., 664.

18 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1730

majesty hath seven thousand troops kept up within
them, with the Indians at command, it seems easy,
provided his governors and principal officers are
independent of the assemblies for their subsistence
and commonly vigilant, to prevent any step of
that kind from being taken." 1 Others had a keen-
er vision. In the same year John Adams, then
a village school-teacher, believed that "if we can
remove the turbulent Gallicks, our people, accord-
ing to the exactest calculations, will in another
century become more numerous than England
itself. Should this be the case, since we have, I
may say, all the naval stores of the nation in our
hands, it will be easy to obtain the mastery of the
seas ; then the united forces of all Europe will not be
able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from
setting up for ourselves is to disunite us."2

Already, in 1730, Montesquieu had prophesied
that because of the laws of navigation and trade
England would be the first nation abandoned by
her colonies.3 Not long thereafter, in his memoirs,
Argenson predicted that the English colonies in
America would sometime rise against the mother-
country, form themselves into a republic, and
astonish the world by their progress.4 In 1750,

1 Shirley to Sir Thomas Robinson, August 15, 1755, in Bancroft,
United States (10 vol. ed.), IV., 214.

2 Adams, Works, I., 23.

3 Montesquieu, " Notes sur l'Angleterre," in CEuvres (ed. of
1826), VIII., 452.

4 Argenson, Pensees sur la Reformation de VEtat, I., 55, 56.

1760] AMERICAN PEOPLE

19

twenty-five years before Washington had begun
to favor independence, Turgot had likened colonies
to fruit which clings to the parent stem only until
ripe, and predicted that what Carthage once did
"America will sometime do."1 On learning of the
terms of the treaty of 1763, Vergennes, then French
ambassador at Constantinople, said that "the
consequences of the entire cession of Canada are
obvious. I am persuaded England will ere long
repent of having removed the only check that could
keep her colonies in awe. They stand no longer in
need of her protection ; she will call on them to con-
tribute toward supporting the burdens they have
helped to bring on her; and they will answer by
striking off all dependence."2

The population of the colonies was of first-rate
quality for nation - building. The basis was of
Anglo-Saxon stock. The New England people were
almost pure English, with slight intermixture of
Scotch-Irish and other elements. The Scotch were
numerous, notably in New Hampshire and North
Carolina. There were French Huguenots, partic-
ularly in South Carolina, a few Swedes in Dela-
ware, Dutch in New Jersey and New York, while
perhaps a third of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania
were Germans. According to the most careful
estimate, the thirteen colonies in 1760 had a total

1 Stephens, Turgot, 165.

2 Vergennes, as quoted in Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885),
II., 564.

20 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

population of about 1,600,000; 2,000,000 in 1767;
2,200,000 in 1770; 2,600,000 in 1775; 2,800,000 in
1780.1 In 1763, therefore, the whole number of
souls was not far from 1,775,000. Of this number
about 360,000 were negroes, slave and free, of whom
more than three-fourths were south of Pennsylvania.

In 1775 Massachusetts had about 335,000 in-
habitants; Pennsylvania 300,000; New York 190,-
000; North Carolina over 265,000; and Virginia
450,000, of whom one - third were blacks. The
colonial population was doubling itself in twenty-
three years, and it was very largely rural. As in the
Old World, the tide of migration to urban centres was
only beginning. In 1763 there were but four towns
of considerable size in the country: Boston and
Philadelphia 2 each with about 20,000, New York
with perhaps 12,000, and Charleston with 9000
persons. Baltimore may have had 5000, Provi-
dence 4000, and Albany 3000. Nearly five per
cent, of the colonial population was then urban;
whereas, by the census of 1900, over forty per cent,
of the people of continental United States dwell in
towns of at least 2500 inhabitants.

At the beginning of the Revolution servants by
indenture were still being advertised for sale. These
included free persons, whom necessity forced into

1 Dexter, Estimates of Population in tlie American Colonies,
50; Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), II., 390.

'See estimates for 1759 by Burnaby, Travels (ed. of 1775),
76, 133; Lecky, England, III., 30.3, 307.

1775] AMERICAN PEOPLE

21

temporary bondage, as well as banished convicts.1
Thus, in 1753, it was announced that the Greyhound
had arrived at the Severn, Maryland, "with 90
persons doomed to stay seven years in his Majesty's
American plantations." Two years later the same
newspaper informed the public that "more than
100 seven-year passengers have arrived at Annap-
olis." Criminals were transported to the same
colony as late at least as 17 74. 2 The fact is en-
lightening. The propriety of receiving the foul
harvest of the London prisons seems scarcely to have
been questioned by the colonists. The slight prog-
ress made in the knowledge of social as well as
economic laws should never be forgotten in trying
to understand the origin and long toleration of
British colonial policy.

1 Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New Eng., II., 520, 695.

1 Boston Gazette, May 8, 1753, and July 10, 1755. Cf. Butler,
"British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies," in Am.
Hist. Review, II., 29, 3c*

CHAPTER II

THE BRITISH EMPIRE UNDER GEORGE III

(1760-1775)

i \ British Empire comprised the united kingdom
of England, Wales, and Scotland; the dependencies
of Ireland, Man, and the Channel Islands; the sea
fortress of Gibraltar and other stations ; the Asiatic
possessions ; and the colonies in America. Together
England, Wales, and Scotland had a population of
about 8,500,000. Since the union in 1707 Scot-
land had enjoyed full commercial and political
equality with England, and already she was be-
coming somewhat reconciled to the loss of inde-
pendent nationality. Ireland, with perhaps 3,500,-
000 people, was a " satrapy" frightfully misgovern-
ed. There the seeds of rebellion were already sown,
and before the century was out they were to bear
their own proper fruit. "Ireland," says a mod-
ern English historian, "was absolutely subject to
Britain, but she formed no part of it, she shared
neither in its liberty nor its wealth." The forms of
national life to her were a mere sham, and her peo-
ple were ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of an

French and Indian War the

1742] BRITISH EMPIRE 23

1

arrogant and greedy Protestant oligarchy. In "all
social and political matters the native Catholics,
in other words, the immense majority of the people
of Ireland, were simply hewers of wood and draw-
ers of water for Protestant masters." 1 The Irish
were excluded from the trade privileges enjoyed by
Scotchmen and Englishmen: a heavy duty was laid
on their woollen cloth; the trade in linen, one of
their most important manufactures, was hampered;
and they were forbidden to raise tobacco. Thus,
in the interest of the colonies and her Scotch and
English neighbors, Ireland was hindered from de-
veloping even her meagre natural resources. Pov-
erty, misery, and social anarchy prevailed.

On the other hand, the prosperity which England
enjoyed had for near half a century been unbroken.
During the long interval of peace under Sir Rob-
ert Walpole (17 21-1742), industry had received a
mighty impulse to which it still responded. The
colonies flourished through the " salutary neglect"
of the mother - country. At home land rents had
advanced fifty per cent., and scientific methods of
agriculture and stock - breeding were being tried
with good results.2 The navigation acts, originally
designed to transfer the monopoly of the carrying
trade from Dutch to English bottoms and to control
the market for colonial products, seemed justified
by the vast increase in the volume of commerce.

1 Green, Hist, of English People, IV., 263.

1 Cunningham, English Industrial History, chap. viii.

24 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

During the reign of George II. exports had nearly
doubled; and between 1760 and 1774, notwith-
standing an unwise change in colonial policy, they
grew from £14,693,270 to £17,128,029.* Among
the nations of the world commercial and maritime
supremacy already belonged to Great Britain.

In population and wealth the great towns were
advancing with rapid strides. By 1763 London
had not less than 650,000 inhabitants. Bristol,
with about 100,000, had trebled its numbers since
Charles II. ; while Norwich came next with some
60,000 souls. Furthermore, there were signs of the
coming industrial era in the rise of new trading and
manufacturing centres. Liverpool, with over 30,000
people, had " become indisputably the third port in
the kingdom, and it was soon prominent beyond all
others in the slave-trade." Other towns had grown
with even more extraordinary speed. Birmingham
now had at least 30,000; Newcastle 40,000; Man-
chester, excluding the suburbs more than 45,000;
while the whole population of Lancashire had risen
from about 166,000 in 1700 to 297,000 in 17 50. 2
The future gave fair promise of great wealth. To be
sure, the war had raised the national debt from near
£72,000,000 to over £139,000, 000, 3 but with prudent
management it would scarcely become a serious
burden for the growing fiscal strength of the realm.

1 Craik, Hist, of Commerce, II., 202; III., 67.
1 Lecky, England, VI., 213-215.

* Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (ed. of 1896), II., 463.

1763]

BRITISH EMPIRE

25

The government of the kingdom was vested in the
crown and Parliament. It was, in fact, a govern-
ment of two powers, for Montesquieu's famous
theory of checks and balances — based mainly on his
view of the English constitution — was not real.
He distinguishes three functions of government —
the executive, the legislative, and the judicial — each
of which should be exercised by a separate au-
thority.1 He may have been led to this conclusion
by a consideration of the fact that the Act of
Settlement (1701) had secured the independence of
the judges, who could no longer be removed from
office without the address of both houses of Parlia-
ment. But in fact the courts did not exercise a
distinct governmental function: their powers were
mixed — partly legislative and partly executive.
English 14 political ideas were not reconcilable with
the existence of three powers of government.
Parliament, it is true, made the law, but so did the
courts in their power of deciding concrete cases.
The laws also were enforced by authorities which
at the same time administered justice." 2

Moreover, even the executive and legislative
functions were not exercised exclusively by separate
agencies. Since the reign of William III. the theory
of government by responsible ministers with seats
in Parliament had existed; and since George I. the
members of the cabinet were selected in the king's

1 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, book xi., chap. vi.
a Goodnow, Politics and Administration, 12.

26 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

name by the prime - minister, who was called to
office directly by the crown. Already the right of
members of the Commons to ask questions of the
ministry on matters of public policy showed that
the theory of responsibility was becoming a reality.
Under normal conditions, the time would soon
come when through the king's ministers the House
of Commons would virtually govern the state.

The normal course of development was checked
for a season through the character of the new king.
The accession of George III. in 1760 marks the
beginning of a retrogressive movement in the history
of the English constitution. From the start, setting
himself against the principle already established
that the sovereign shall act only through responsible
ministers, the king resolved to govern as well as
reign. The experiment was in the highest degree
perilous ; for the maxim "the king can do no wrong "
holds good only so long as he acts not at all of his
own motion. George was wretchedly educated, most
unfortunate in such training as he had received.
Under the influence of his mother, the ambitious
princess dowager of Wales, and his groom of the
stole, Lord Bute, he had developed notions of royal
prerogative which entirely unfitted him for his
duties as a constitutional king. According to Lord
Waldgrave, at one time his governor, he was "full
of princely prejudices, contracted in the nursery,
and improved by the society of bed-chamber women
and pages of the back-stairs." In his youth his

1760]

BRITISH EMPIRE

27

mother had repeatedly said to him, "George, be
king." Following her counsel, as May says, he
"came to the throne determined to exalt the kingly
office; and throughout his long reign he never lost
sight of that object." 1

Though the judgment is perhaps not too em-
phatic that the third George "had a smaller mind
than any English king before him save James the
Second," and that "his only feeling towards great
men was one of jealousy and hate," 2 yet he possessed
a sturdy character which for good or ill was sure to
leave a lasting mark on the history of his country.
For several reasons he was favorably contrasted with
his ancestors. In speech, feeling, and habits the
first two princes of the house of Hanover were Ger-
mans, while George III. was an Englishman. " Born
and educated in this country, I glory in the name of
Briton," are the words which his own hand added
to the draft of his first speech to Parliament.3 His
private life was simple and decorous. He exhibited
the domestic virtues in an eminent degree. He was
a good son, a faithful husband, a conscientious father,
a devout and punctilious churchman. He loved
to mingle with the people and to greet kindly the
children whom he met on his walks. He was
morally brave, and his remarkable physical courage

1 Waldgrave, Memoirs (ed. ofi82i),63; Albemarle, Memoirs of
Rockingham, I., 3; May, Const. Hist, of Eng., I., 23.

2 Green, Hist, of English People, IV., 201.
* Rose, Correspondence, II., 189.

28 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

stood more than one severe test during his reign.
In addition he had a firmness of will, a tenacity of
purpose, which might degenerate into obstinacy — a
very dangerous gift for a prince of small intellect,
inheriting vast and varied sources of influence and
power.1

If George III. was a good man, he was decidedly a
bad ruler. "It may be said without exaggeration
that he inflicted more profound and enduring in-
juries upon his country than any other modern
English king. Ignorant, narrow-minded, and ar-
bitrary, with an unbounded confidence in his own
judgment, and an extravagant estimate of his pre-
rogative, resolved at all hazards to compel his
ministers to adopt his own views, or to undermine
them if they refused, he spent a long life in ob-
stinately resisting measures which are now almost
universally admitted to have been good, and in
supporting measures which are as universally ad-
mitted to have been bad." 2 When he ascended the
throne England was still in the hands of a Whig
oligarchy which had controlled it for almost half
a century. A few great families dominated Parlia-
ment and enjoyed a monopoly of pensions, honors,
and preferments. While there was still danger from
the Young Pretender, the Tories were silenced.
Pitt alone had made a breach in the solid Whig ranks,
for he boldly proclaimed that he owed his place as

1 Thackeray, Four Georges (ed. of 1891), 72; on his courage,
Lecky, England, III., 14. 2 Ibid., III., 15.

1782]

BRITISH EMPIRE

29

war minister to the voice of the people. But the
king detested the Great Commoner, whom he called
a "trumpet of sedition," and he determined to build
up a party of his own through appeal to the Tories,
who since Culloden had already begun to lift their
heads. Pitt was disgraced, and in 1762 the Earl
of Bute, leader of "the king's friends," became first
lord of the treasury.

The new prime - minister was unpopular as a
Scot, hated for his arrogance, and utterly devoid of
statesmanlike qualities. His rise had been rapid.
In thirteen months he passed from the stole through
a series of honors to the head of the cabinet. " His
sudden elevation resembled that of an Eastern
vizier, rather than the toilsome ascent of a British
statesman."1 But in calling his favorite to office
the king was in reality taking the first step towards
the establishment of his own personal rule. He was,
in fact, imitating the dangerous policy of Edward II.
and the first two Stuarts. With steady persistence
he strove to create and then to master the Whig
factions. In 1770 his victory was complete. For
twelve years thereafter, in the name of Lord North,
the king virtually governed the realm; and he did
not drop the reins until his hand was forced by the
loss of America, whose rebellion his fatuous course
had done most to provoke.

To accomplish his purpose the king did not
scruple to employ every questionable device known

1 May, Const. Hist, of Eng., I., 31.

VOL. VIII.— 4

30 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

to the politics of that corrupt age. Although Sir
Robert Walpole may not have been the author of
the cynical maxim "Every man has his price,"1
bribery flourished during his rule, but perhaps in
no greater degree than under the ministries which
followed. The low tone of public morality is strik-
ingly revealed by the attitude of Pitt. Ostenta-
tiously pure in his own methods, scorning to give or
to take a bribe, he hesitated neither to share the
government with Newcastle — past -master of the
arts of political corruption — nor to advance his own
measures through his colleague's sinister skill. "I
borrow the Duke of Newcastle's majority," he said,
"to carry on the public business."

There is a sharp contrast between the private
and the public ethics of George III. Pious church-
man though he was, he resorted to bribery in nearly
every form to buy support for his policy. Gold,
pensions, and places were freely used to reward his
friends or to purchase votes in Parliament, while
those who voted contrary to his wishes were pun-
ished by having their honors, offices, or emoluments
taken away. According to Horace Walpole, Lord
Bute's unpopular preliminaries of peace were carried
in 1762 by deliberate bribery. Through Henry
Fox, who had been intrusted with the "manage-
ment of the house of commons," a "shop was
publicly opened at the Pay Office, whither the
members flocked, and received the wages of their

1 Morley, Walpole, 127.

BRITISH EMPIRE

3i

venality in bank-bills, even to so low a sum as two
hundred pounds for their votes on the treaty.
Twenty-five thousand pounds, as Martin, Secretary
of the Treasury, afterwards owned, were issued in
one morning; and in a single fortnight a vast
majority was purchased to approve the peace." 1
The same genial writer bears testimony to the
naive and unblushing methods of corruption prac-
tised by Henry Fox. Under Bute he wrote a letter
to Walpole offering to appoint the latter 's neph-
ew, Lord Orford, to the rangership of St. James's
and Hyde parks, saying: 1 'If he does choose
it, I doubt not of his and his friend Boone's
hearty assistance, and believe I shall see you, too,
much oftener in the House of Commons. This is
offering you a bribe, but 'tis such a one as one honest,
good-natured man may, without offence, offer to
another." Walpole declined the bargain, and in
consequence for several months he was deprived of
payments due him in the exchequer.2

There is no doubt that the king himself sometimes
suggested such disgraceful traffic. On October 16,
1779, he wrote to Lord North, "If the D. of Nor-
thumberland requires some gold pills for the elec-
tion, it would be wrong not to give him some assist-
ance." To the same minister on March 1, 1781, he
wrote : " Mr. Robinson . . . sent me the list of speakers
' last night, and the very good majority. I have

1 Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, I., 127, 128; Walpole,
Memoirs of George III., 1., 157. 2 Ibid., I., 1 68-1 71.

PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

this morning sent him 6,oooZ to be placed to the
same purpose as the sum transmitted on the 21st
of August/'1 His corrupt use of secret pensions
became a shameful abuse. "A bribe," declared
Lord Halifax, "is given for a particular job; a
pension is a constant, continual bribe. The jobbers
are only a sort of day-labourers : but pensioners are
domestic servants, hired to go through all the
dirty business of the House." 2 Thus, early in the
reign, " Rose Fuller — who had been a staunch whig
— was bought off by a secret pension of 500/. The
cause of his apostasy was not discovered till after
his death."3 Furthermore, there were various indi-
rect means of corruption. Lotteries, contracts, and
loans were thus freely employed in the purchase of
influence or votes. In 1763 Bute contracted a
loan for £3,500,000, at an extravagant rate of in-
terest, and distributed the shares among his friends.
The scrip at once rose to a premium of eleven per
cent. In this instance the wholesale bribery of
members of Parliament cost the country £385,000;
while in 1781, through Lord North's iniquitous loan
of £12,000,000, the people lost in excessive interest
£900,000, one-half of which found its way into the
pockets of members of the House of Commons.4

1 Donne, Correspondence of George III., II., 286, 362.

2 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XL, 522.

3 May, Const. Hist, of Eng, I., 296.

AIbid., 304, 305; Adolphus, Hist, of Eng., I., 111* Cobbett-
Hansard, Pari. Hist., XV., 1305; XXI., 1334-1386; Wraxall,iW>-
moirs, II., 90, et seq.; Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, II., 436.

1766]

BRITISH EMPIRE

33

During the American Revolution and for many
years afterwards the people of England were very
imperfectly represented in the House of Commons.
That body consisted of 558 members: 45 from
Scotland and 513 from England and Wales. Of
this last number, 417 were borough members, 92
county members, and 4 were members chosen by
the universities. The existing system of " virtual"
representation left out of account the great mass of
the population There had never been any attempt
systematically to apportion representation according
to population or wealth. In theory each member
of the Commons represented all parts of the king-
dom, even of the empire. The franchise was re-
stricted in various ways. In the counties only
forty - shilling freeholders could vote, and many
of these were controlled absolutely by the influence
of the great landholders. The state of the borough
representation was much worse. This is 1 'the
rotten part of our Constitution," said Lord Chatham
in 1766. By common law the franchise was vested
in the resident householders ; but in practice for ages
monstrous irregularities had been sanctioned. In
a few places the franchise still belonged to the rate-
payers, those paying "scot and lot" ; in some towns
it was vested only in those holding lands by burgage
tenure ; in several it was enjoyed only by those upon
whom corporate powers had been conferred by royal
charter; while in many "these different rights were
combined, or qualified by exceptional conditions."

34 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

As a result, in many towns a few persons monop-
olized the franchise. "At Buckingham, and at
Bewdley, the right of election was confined to the
bailiff and twelve burgesses ; at Bath, to the mayor,
ten aldermen, and twenty-four common-councillors ;
at Salisbury, to the mayor and corporation, consist-
ing of fifty-six persons." Where "more popular
rights of election were acknowledged, there were
often very few inhabitants to exercise them. Gatton
enjoyed a liberal franchise. All freeholders and in-
habitants paying scot and lot were entitled to vote,
but they only amounted to seven. At Tavistock,
all freeholders rejoiced in the franchise, but there
were only ten. At St. Michael, all inhabitants pay-
ing scot and lot were electors, but there were only
seven." 1

The right of selecting places for the privilege of
being parliamentary boroughs formerly belonged to
the crown. As a rule, the honor was conferred upon
the more important towns — those best able to grant
aids for the king's service. In early days, accord-
ing to Glanville, places were capriciously selected,
even by the sheriff; and sometimes, notably un-
der the Tudors, political reasons determined the
choice. Moreover, no new parliamentary borough
had been created since the Restoration. The result
was remarkable. While flourishing cities like Bir-
mingham, Liverpool, Leeds, or Manchester had no
representation at all, small towns like Ludgershall

1 May, Const. Hist, of Eng., I., 266.

1763]

BRITISH EMPIRE

35

or Old Sarum, with scarcely any inhabitants, con-
tinued to return one or two members to Parliament.
Such places were known as " nomination, " " pocket,"
or "rotten" boroughs, and their representation was
often bought and sold in the market. Some of
these places had regular "brokers" who offered
them to the highest bidder.1 Sudbury publicly
advertised itself for sale. In this way a great lord
might actually send a number of members to the
House of Commons. Thus the "Duke of Norfolk
was represented by eleven members ; Lord Lonsdale
by nine; Lord Darlington by seven; the Duke of
Rutland, the Marquess of Buckingham, and Lord
Carrington, each by six. Seats wrere held, in both
houses alike, by hereditary right."2 According to
Oldfield, "no less than two hundred and eighteen
members were returned for counties and boroughs,
in England and Wales, by the nomination or in-
fluence of eighty -seven peers; one hundred and
thirty-seven were returned by ninety commoners,
and sixteen by the government; making a total
number of three hundred and seventy-one nominee
members," or more than half the entire representa-
tion of the House of Commons.8

The condition of things in Scotland was even
worse. In the entire kingdom there were not three

1 Walpole, Memoirs of George III., III., 112.
* May, Const. Hist, of Eng., I., 267.

9 Ibid., 2 88, summarizing Oldfield, Representative History,
VI., 285-309.

36 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

thousand voters; while even in 1831 the first two
cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, had each a "con-
stituency of thirty -three persons."1 Moreover,
through the skilful use of patronage, the whole
representation was controlled by the government.

Shocking as was the state of representation, it
must be confessed that at the beginning of George
III.'s reign no class of excluded persons clearly de-
manded the franchise. There were, indeed, signs
that the wealthier and more intelligent among
the unrepresented, particularly in the manufactur-
ing and commercial centres, were growing weary
of the corruption and selfishness of the ruling
oligarchy, and were beginning to desire a voice in
the government which they were called upon to
support; but the ignorant, sodden masses were in-
different and inert. Public opinion as an organized
institution was just arising. The press, its organ,
was feeble and its freedom was abridged. There
was no adequate popular discussion of public ques-
tions. The age of great petitions and monster
mass-meetings was not yet.

Still, public opinion was already forming, and
occasionally the voice of the people made itself
heard. It exacted the unjust execution of Admiral
Byng in 1757; it carried Pitt into the cabinet,
and it sustained his war policy. It condemned the
peace of Paris in 1763, and drove Bute from office.

1 Hansard, Pari Debates, 2d series, IX., 614, 615; 3d series,
VII., 530.

1780]

BRITISH EMPIRE

37

The demands of the merchants were a powerful
factor in securing the repeal of the Stamp Act and
the Townshend revenue law. Public opinion sup-
ported John Wilkes in the long struggle (1763-17 74),
in which he maintained the liberty of persons
against the abuse of general warrants, and de-
fended the rights of constituents against the
tyranny of the House of Commons. In at least
seventeen counties public meetings were held in
1770 to support the electors of Middlesex, who
thrice returned Wilkes to the Commons after his
expulsion.1 Popular sentiment likewise encour-
aged that statesman-like demagogue in the contest
(1771) in which he won the liberty of reporting the
debates of Parliament. Before the Revolutionary
War the press, thus in part set free, had gained a
position of real power such as hitherto it had never
enjoyed. Near its close the wider use of public
meetings, already noted, began to spread. In 1779-
1780 the " freeholders of Yorkshire and twenty-
three other counties, and the inhabitants of many
cities, were assembled by their sheriffs and chief
magistrates to discuss economical and parliamentary
reform." 2

In theory the more important rights and liberties
of persons were safeguarded by Magna Chart a, the
Bill of Rights, and the other great statutes. These
were generally regarded as "constitutional" or

1 Annual Register, 1770, p. 58.

2 May, Const. Hist, of Eng., XI., 126.

38 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1753

organic laws which Parliament could not repeal
without violating the most profound sentiment of
the nation. It was becoming more and more com-
mon to speak of the ''British constitution" as an
entity beyond the reach of parliamentary inter-
ference.

Yet the liberty of the subject was very far from
being complete. Nonconformists and Roman Catho-
lics still suffered under the harsh penal code of the
seventeenth century, and could not even marry
according to their own religious forms. By the
intolerant Hardwicke act (1753) Catholics and
dissenters alike — save only Jews and Quakers —
against their consciences were forced to have their
marriages solemnized before a minister of the es-
tablished church and according to its rites. Until
1778 a Catholic priest was liable to perpetual im-
prisonment for conducting the worship of his church ;
a Catholic could not acquire land by purchase;
and his child, if educated abroad, forfeited his in-
heritance to the next Protestant heir. The in-
famous Corporation and Test acts were in force
until 1828; and until 1829 Catholics were excluded
from both houses of Parliament.

Furthermore, while the weak, dependent, and
helpless classes were treated by society with in-
difference or cruel oppression, they were exposed to
the vagaries of an absurdly inconsistent and savage
criminal code. Life was held cheaper than prop-
erty. There were more than one hundred and

i8o8] BRITISH EMPIRE 39

sixty capital offences, sixty-three being added to
the code during the first fifty years of George III.
Until 1808 picking a pocket for any sum greater
than twelvepence was punishable by death. "On
the other hand, it was not a capital offence for a
man to attempt the life of his father; to commit
premeditated perjury, even when the result was
the execution of an innocent man"; or "to burn
a house in which the incendiary had a lease, even
though it was so situated as to endanger the lives
of hundreds."1 Until 1836, the rule which de-
prived a person accused of any capital crime ex-
cept treason of the aid of counsel in his defence
had been but slightly relaxed. By permission of
the court, "in trials for felony a counsel now usu-
ally stood beside the prisoner, instructed him what
questions to ask, and even himself cross-examined
the witnesses, though he might not address the
judge or jury unless a legal question had arisen."2
The condition of the prisons, as disclosed by
Howard's researches, was horrible beyond belief.
The highwayman was almost an English institution.
An immense number of criminals were executed,
always in public, and usually the executions were
exhibitions of sanguinary cruelty. Sometimes men
and women were done to death in "batches." The
records of the Old Bailey for the twenty-three years

,Lecky, England, VI., 247.

2 Ibid., 252; Blackstone, Commentaries IV., 27; Stephen,
Criminal Law, I., 424.

4o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1760

between 1749 and 1772 show that one thousand one
hundred and twenty-one persons were condemned
to death; and the number of victims would have
been much larger had the law been rigidly enforced.
The brutalizing spectacle of the Tyburn processions
was kept up until 1783; convicts were hanged in
chains until 1834. So bloody and inconsistent was
the criminal code that jurors refused to convict for
the offence charged, preferring to perjure themselves
in face of the clearest evidence of guilt ; while humane
persons, for like motives, hesitated to bring offenders
to account. In fact, the administration of the crim-
inal law in England had become almost as much
demoralized as in France under Louis XV.

Practically, slavery did not exist in the British
isles, although before the decision of Lord Mansfield
in the Somerset case (1772) slaves might be landed
and retained by their owners on English soil. On
the other hand, slavery was allowed to flourish in
the colonies. On moral or humane grounds there
was no public sentiment hostile to the institution.
A few enlightened persons like Granville Sharpe,
Thomas Clarkson or William Wilberforce might
raise their voices against the evil, but the public
conscience was not yet stirred.

On the contrary, the slave-trade was zealously
fostered as a legitimate and lucrative industry.
Since the seventeenth century its encouragement
had become a cardinal principle of imperial policy;
and the restrictive legislation of the colonies was

BRITISH EMPIRE

4i

frowned upon as an interference with the rights
of British commerce. Until 1698 the traffic was
carried on by chartered companies. In that year
by act of Parliament it was thrown open to private
traders.1 It became " highly beneficial and advan-
tageous to this kingdom, and to the plantations
and colonies thereunto belonging." A new impulse
was given to the business by the treaty of 17 13,
which secured to England a monopoly of the trade
with the Spanish colonies, and gave the kings of
England and Spain each one-fourth of the profits.
Even so progressive a statesman as the elder Pitt
made the encouragement of the slave-trade a " main
object of his policy."2

In England Bristol, London, and especially
Liverpool were foremost in the traffic; while their
most active rivals were the great New England
towns. The business was exceedingly profitable,
and it was conducted on an enormous scale. Be-
tween 1733 and 1766 — besides the large number
imported by the colonists — about twenty thousand
negroes annually were brought into the continental
provinces of North America by English traders. In
the West Indies, relatively, the number was even
greater. For instance, during the three years pre-
ceding 1762 the little island of Guadeloupe im-
ported nearly 40,000 blacks;3 and between 1752 and

1 9 and 10 William and Mary, chap. xxvi.

2 Lecky, England, I., 547. Cf. Du Bois, Slave-Trade, 1-6.
8 Grenville Papers , II., 13.

42 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1757

1762 not less than 71,115 were brought into Jamaica.1
Moreover, the traffic — though attended by the most
atrocious cruelty — was not prohibited in the colonies
until 1807; and only in 1833 was slavery finally
abolished throughout the British realm.

The picture of imperial growth seemed very bright.
The withdrawal of France left Great Britain virt-
ually mistress of the North American continent ; at
Plassey, in 1757, Clive laid the solid foundation of
her East Indian sway; while in the Pacific and
Indian oceans Captain Cook was about to claim a
vast island empire in her name. In 1768 he raised
the British flag on the shores of New Zealand and
New South Wales; and in two later voyages he
gained other new lands for his country in the
southern seas. A period of expansion through con-
quest was thus followed (i768-i8i5)byan era of ex-
pansion through exploration and discovery scarcely
second in importance to that of Elizabeth's reign.

The theory of the empire finds its clearest ex-
pression in the old colonial system, which presently
will be examined. A broad distinction was made
between the mother-country and the outside terri-
tories. The imperial government rested on the
assumption that the colonies and dependencies ex-
isted primarily for the good of the parent state.
They were to be made a source of England's political
and military power, even at a considerable cost to
themselves. In return they should have the pro-

1 Macpherson, Annals, III., 403.

1 768]

BRITISH EMPIRE

43

tection of the British flag, and be exempt from
contributing directly to the imperial revenues. It
" seemed fair to subordinate the economic interests
of the colonies to the interests of the mother-coun-
try, so that they might help to increase the fund
of wealth from which the expenses of the common
defence were defrayed." 1

Accordingly, the imperial government was exer-
cised solely from England, and the administrative
authority was vested mainly in the crown. The
crown was the source of all land titles and of all
charters, commercial or governmental. To the
king belonged the prerogative of revising the acts
of the colonial assemblies; and all the higher ap-
pointments in the civil or military service were
made in his name. On the other hand, general
legislative authority in the empire belonged to
Parliament. So far as applicable, all English statutes
in force at the time of the first colonization were
commonly held to be valid in the colonies, and all
new statutes were binding if the colonies were
specially mentioned therein. Moreover, the colonist
enjoyed the full advantages of the common law
wherever courts competent for its administration
were created. Yet Parliament had relatively a
small share in the direct government of the empire ;
and this was in part due to the jealousy of the crown,
which sometimes, as in the case of ecclesiastical
matters, resented its interference.

1 Cunningham, English Industrial History, 133.

44 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1689

During the century preceding the accession of
George III the colonists had generally accepted
the imperial theory without serious protest, and
exhibited a steadfast loyalty to Great Britain.
They had yielded to the king's prerogative, accept-
ed his protection when granted, and freely admit-
ted the right of Parliament to regulate their trade
and manufactures. They had prospered amazingly.
Under the stimulus of local self-government they
had become the freest people in the world, and
therefore the most sensitive to the encroachments
of the central power. Of a truth, in the quality of
their civilization they had in some vital respects
far outstripped the mother-country. In political
ideals the contrast between Great Britain and her
colonies was very great. Unquestionably in the finer
sense the political education of the American peo-
ple was far superior to that of their brethren in the
old home. The standard of political morality was
much higher. In place of the moral torpor which
prevailed in England and Scotland, there had been
developed in the colonies an extreme sensitiveness in
regard to personal and constitutional rights. Through
active participation in the town-meeting, the county
court, and the assembly, a fierce spirit of liberty
had been fostered which could not be subdued
through appeal to worn-out precedents born of
lower ideals.

The contrast in the ideals of private ethics was
not less striking. The moral tone of " high " society

1768]

BRITISH EMPIRE

45

in England was unspeakably coarse and vulgar.
Some of the foremost statesmen of the age were
steeped to the core in vice. Gambling, drinking, and
raking were patrician recreations. Henry Fox de-
liberately encouraged his son Charles in a career of
vice. Debauchery and prodigality were venial sins.
"The Duke of Grafton, in 1768, was in the very
depths of a scandal of which Junius took care that
all the world should be cognizant ; and in the course
of that very year his Grace was unanimously chosen
Chancellor for the University of Cambridge." Lord
Sandwich, a violent enemy of the Americans, had
shared with Wilkes in the foul revels of Medmenham
Abbey; yet "he had already run a dead heat for
the High Stewardship of the same educational body.
The University was saved from the ineffaceable
disgrace which would have attended his success by
the votes of the country clergy," who favored Lord
Hardwicke in his stead.1

On the other hand, observing foreigners were
struck with the simplicity, virtue, and hospitality
of American life. Compared with the orgies of the
fine gentlemen of London, the excesses even of
the Virginian cavaliers were but innocent gayety.
There was little in common between the lives of
such men and the stern morality of John or Samuel
Adams; while the moral ideals of George III., pre-
scribing gold pills for the Duke of Northumber-
land, compared with the stainless honor and lofty

1 Trevelyan, American Revolution, I.,64, 65.
vol. vm.— 5

46 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

dignity of George Washington — risking all for his
country without pecuniary reward — present a con-
trast of profound meaning for him who would grasp
one of the determining conditions of the American
Revolution.1

1 See especially, Trevelyan, American Revolution, I., 28-99.

CHAPTER III

THE MERCANTILE COLONIAL SYSTEM

(1660-1775)

THE primary cause of the American Revolution
must be sought in the character of the old
colonial system, which was based on political and
economic theories generally accepted as valid in
the seventeenth century, but which, nevertheless,
were the fruit of ignorance and inexperience.
Politically, colonies were then looked upon as " de-
pendencies," not as integral and fully privileged
members of the growing parent state. Economi-
cally, they were ''possessions," subject to exploita-
tion for the benefit of the people who remained at
home. These doctrines found partial expression
in two ways: politically in the subjection of the
colonies to "prerogative"; economically in their
subjection to the "laws of navigation and trade."
In both ways the Englishman who became a colonist
sank somewhat in the social scale. The enterpris-
ing men and women who bravely faced the perils
and hardships of the savage wilderness, thereby
extending the prestige and wealth of the British
nation, were not intentionally rewarded therefor by

47

48 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1606

new political and economic privileges. On the
contrary they were looked upon as having ex-
patriated themselves, as having yielded some part
of the constitutional and legal rights which they
already possessed. If this seems strange to us now,
it must not be forgotten that our vision has been
sharpened by nearly a century and a half of ex-
perience. It is very enlightening to reflect that the
present wise colonial policy of Great Britain was
adopted only after the bitter discipline of the
American war. Furthermore, even now the " pro-
vincial' ' does not entirely escape the social con-
descension of his insular kinsman.1

Of a truth, to determine what ought to be the
relation of colonies to the mother-country was not
at all an easy problem for the men of the seventeenth
century. Practically, the choice seemed to lie be-
tween allowing them to set up for themselves as
independent communities, after the manner of the
daughter colonies of Hellenic cities, or of keeping
them in a state of at least partial subordination,
following the custom of other European states.
To turn them adrift to shift for themselves would
have seemed heartless and unjust to the colonists
themselves; to recognize them as integral parts of
the expanding nation, with the same status, the

*For the theories and practice of the colonial system in
the seventeenth century, see Andrews, Colonial Self -Govern-
ment {Am. Nation, V.), chap, i.; in the early eighteenth
century, Greene, Provincial America {Am. Nation, VI.), chaps,
ii.-v.

1763]

COLONIAL SYSTEM

49

same rights and duties as before migration, ap-
peared impractical on account of the distance —
always a puzzling factor in the problem — while
to place them in a position of virtual autonomy,
under the merely nominal sovereignty of England,
perhaps to be a heavy burden upon the exchequer
rather than a source of revenue, though according
to modern ideas, would have been deemed a course
devoid of common-sense by a generation under the
full sway of the mercantile dogma.

The result was an ill-defined policy, confusedly
blending two utterly antagonistic principles formed
under the influence of Spain, whose experience
reached back a hundred years before the first col-
onies of England were planted. In "the first set-
tlement of America the conception of a Spanish
colony as an extension of Spain was mixed up
with a different conception of it as a possession be-
longing to Spain." 1 But if unconsciously England
accepted the Spanish theory, she did not thoroughly
imitate the Spanish practice. Politically and eco-
nomically her colonies enjoyed far more liberty than
did those either of Spain, France, or Holland.
"On some points," admits Leroy-Beaulieu, "Eng-
land showed a liberalism unusual at that epoch." 2

By the right of discovery, according to legal
theory,3 the title to England's American territories

1 Seeley, Expansion of England, 62.^

3 Leroy-Beaulieu, Histoire de la Colonisation (4th ed., 1891),
119. 8 Peters, in U. 5. Statutes at Large, VII., 1-11.

5o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1660

belonged to the crown. From the crown, therefore,
the colonists derived their charters and patents.
They and their lands were spoken of indiscriminate-
ly as the crown's "possessions." They were placed
in subjection to the "prerogative," that undefined
"sovereign authority" against which already in
1628 Sir Edward Coke had protested;1 to an au-
thority, that is to say, which for Englishmen at
home became more and more clearly recognized as
"unconstitutional" with each step forward in the
march of parliamentary liberty. All this was un-
fortunate ; but it was not thought of as despotic by
the people of that age. To them it seemed just that
as possessions the colonies should be made fruitful
to their owner. Economic equality, they fancied,
might make the colonies a damage rather than a
benefit to the mother-country. Such a policy would
now be condemned as selfish and short-sighted. In
the end it proved harmful to the colonies. Yet
before the advent of the Physiocrats and Adam
Smith, it was sanctioned by the best economic
thought of Europe. Clearly the faults of the old
restrictive system were due to "unconscious igno-
rance " and not to "conscious malice." 2

Aside from the measures providing for its ad-
ministration, the restrictive colonial system finds ex-
pression in three series of laws : ( 1 ) the acts of navi-
gation, strictly so-called, intended to protect Eng-

1 Creasy, English Constitution (15th ed.), 287.

2 Cf. Beer, Commercial Policy, 9.

1763] COLONIAL SYSTEM 51

lish shipping against foreign competitors; (2) acts of
trade, designed to secure to the English merchants a
monopoly of colonial commerce; and (3) acts giving
to English manufacturers a monopoly of the colonial
market. The first two subjects, navigation and
trade, are sometimes dealt with in distinct parts of
the statute, as in that of 1660. In its motive the
whole "restrictive system" was class legislation
pure and simple, of which the English merchant
and the English manufacturer were the beneficiaries.
In their interest the system aimed to control the
imports of the colonies from abroad ; their exports to
other countries ; their traffic with each other ; their
carrying trade ; and their manufactures. Indirectly,
of course, the English people remaining at home
might profit by the monopoly ; but the gains were
unequally distributed.

At the Revolution the three basic statutes of the
seventeenth century were still in force. By the act
of 1660, 1 (1) the importation of goods from any part
of Asia, Africa, or America, whether British or
foreign, is confined to English or colonial ships
whereof the masters and at least three-fourths of
the mariners must be English. (2) No commodities
of foreign growth, production, or manufacture may
be brought into England, Ireland, Wales, Guernsey,
Jersey, or Berwick, in such English (or colonial)
owned and built vessels, unless they come directly

1 12 Charles II., chap, xviii.; also summarized in Andrews,
Colonial Self-Government {Am. Nation, V.), chap, i,

52 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1660

from the producing country or from the ports
whence they are usually laden for transportation.
(3) Foreign carriers are absolutely excluded from the
colonial market whether shipping their own prod-
ucts or not. " Noe Goods or Commodities what-
soever," the act declares, "shall be Imported into or
Exported out of" his majesty's possessions in Asia,
Africa, or America except in English ships or ships
built and owned in the plantations, "whereof the
Master and three fourthes of the Marriners at least
are English." (4) The coasting-trade is closed to
foreigners, and no alien is permitted to be a factor or
merchant in the colonies. (5) Furthermore, certain
products are named in the act, later added to from
time to time, and known as "enumerated articles,"
which may not be carried from the colonies, even in
English ships, to any place other than to such Eng-
lish plantations or to England or Ireland. These
articles are sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, indigo,
ginger, fustic, and other dyeing woods. "This af-
fected the English sugar islands of the West Indies
and the southern colonies, which were obliged to
send their products to the overstocked English or
colonial markets, more than it affected New Eng-
land, whose great staples, lumber, fish, oil, ashes,
and furs, were free to find their best market, pro-
vided only they were sent in English or colonial
ships."1 Naval stores were not as yet included.
This act, therefore, though by no means generous

1 Chamberlain, in Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI., 7, 8.

1 73 1] COLONIAL SYSTEM 53

in its motive, is not intolerable. The colonists
share equally with Englishmen at home in the
rich monopolies of ship-building and the carrying
trade. According to an elaborate tariff of 1660, dis-
criminating against aliens, they may import all
foreign goods, and, with the exception of the
enumerated articles, export their own products to
foreign countries, paying thereon the same import
or export duty as when shipped to or from England
by subjects of the crown residing in Great Britain.1
On the other hand, they have lost the benefit of
competition: foreigners are no longer permitted
to carry their own products to plantation ports.
For a time at least Virginians felt it a grievance that
they could no longer export their tobacco in Dutch
ships; just as in England the cost of freight on
European imports was raised.2 Throughout the act
colonial ships and colonial seamen are recognized
as "English," a statute of 1662 clearing up any
doubt which may have existed on that point.3
Scotchmen, however, were not included until after
the union in 1707; and "Ireland" seems to have
been put in the law by mistake. Hence, in 1670,
the shipment of enumerated goods from the colonies
directly to Ireland was forbidden; and between
1696 and 1 73 1 even non-enumerated articles could
not be sent to that country except by way of

1 12 Charles II., chap. iv. 3 Cf. Ashley, Surveys, 31 1-3 13.
3 13 and 14 Charles II., chap, xi., § 6; Channing, Navigation
Laws, 9.

54 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1663

England. Likewise, the navigation laws prohibited
the direct exportation of goods from Ireland to the
colonies, although in 1704 an exception was made
in the case of linen.1

The enumeration of colonial products was prompt-
ed by a dual motive. The English merchant would
thus gain a monopoly in the distribution of these
goods, and the English manufacturer would secure
a monopoly in the colonial supply of raw materials.
Yet neither the merchant nor the manufacturer was
satisfied with his advantage under the act of 1660.
If now, after the model of the mediaeval "staple"
towns, England were made the sole place for supply-
ing the plantations with European goods, a still
richer middleman's profit would be put within the
merchant's grasp, and the manufacturer would find
a greater demand from the colonists for his finished
product in exchange for their raw materials.

Such is the aim of the "second" navigation act
passed in 1663. 2 The preamble significantly de-
scribes the people of his majesty's colonies as V Sub-
jects of this His Kingdome of England"; and
naively announces that the law is designed for
"maintaining a greater correspondence and kind-
nesse betweene them and keepeing them in a
firmer dependance upon" that kingdom "and ren-

1 22 and 23 Charles II., chap, xxvi., §§ 10, 11; 3 and 4 Anne,
chap. viii. Cf. 3 George I., chap, vii., § 29; and chap, xxi., § 2;
Beer, Commercial Policy, 40; Channing, Navigation Laws, 12.

2 15 Charles II., chap. vii.

1689] COLONIAL SYSTEM 55

dring them yet more beneficiall and advantagious
unto it," by making England the " Staple not onely
of the Commodities of those Plantations but alsoe
of the Commodities of other Countryes and Places
for the support of them." Accordingly, with the
exception of salt for the fisheries of New England
and Newfoundland, wines of the Western Islands, or
Azores, servants, horses, and victuals from Ireland
and Scotland, the direct import trade of the colo-
nies in European goods is entirely cut off ; while, as
before, the export trade to all foreign countries is
forbidden in the enumerated articles again men-
tioned in the statute. Other goods the colonist
might, indeed, carry directly to Europe; but his
vessel must then return empty unless he was
willing to transship his cargo by way of an English
port.

Some advantages accrued to the colonists in case
of such a re-exportation — a part or the whole of
the duty was usually returned. Indeed, the people
of England complained that Americans could get
certain goods, such as German or Dutch linens,
cheaper than they themselves could obtain them.
Furthermore, it is strongly urged by Ashley, ac-
cepting the view of Brougham, that England was
the natural entrepot for the exchange of colonial and
European products, so that the restrictions on the
direct trade imposed by the acts of 1660 and 1663
were not really a hardship. In the case of tobacco
transshipped to Europe, he admits that the cost

56 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1662

of freight may have been increased, though if so it
would be " borne to some extent by the continental
consumer."1 It seems to follow from this argu-
ment that the colonial consumer would have to pay
the extra cost of freight on goods transshipped to
him from Europe.

The intercolonial trade still remained free. To
appropriate a part of the benefits of this was the
next step in the development of the restrictive
system. The law regarding the enumerated com-
modities had been evaded. As early as 1662 it
appears that tobacco was being delivered to Dutch
vessels at sea, shipped directly to the Dutch planta-
tions, or carried to New England and thence re-
exported in Dutch ships to Europe. "Moreover
the products sent through England had paid duties,
and the illegal trader was thus enabled to under-
sell the English merchant in the European markets." 2
In admirable harmony with the spirit of the old
colonial policy, the entire people of the plantations,
guilty and innocent alike, were now to be pun-
ished for this offence. By the act of 1672, creating
the famous "acute triangle" of trade,3 the whole
traffic in the enumerated articles between one
plantation and another — whether the goods were
intended for home consumption or not — is sub-

1 Ashley, Surveys, 317, et seq. Cf. Brougham, Inquiry into the
Colonial Policy, 246.

'Beer, Commercial Policy, 39; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist.,
III., 44. s 25 Charles II., chap. vii.

1672] COLONIAL SYSTEM

57

jected to a penalty. The trader, for instance, who
will carry sugar from Jamaica to New England, or
tobacco from Virginia to New York, must either
render tribute at the place of shipment according
to a tariff prescribed in the statute, or else give
bond to unlade his cargo in an English port, there
paying the usual duty before proceeding to his
colonial destination. On some articles the duties
were heavy — tobacco, for instance, paying one penny
a pound and white sugar five shillings the hundred-
weight. In other cases the charges seem to have
been designed only to secure a record of the clear-
ance, entrance, or destination of cargoes; and as a
matter of fact the colonists did not very seriously
object to them.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that the restraint of
American manufactures should be the next step
in the expansion of the system. Before consider-
ing this, however, the enumerated articles demand
further attention. The history of these commod-
ities is very enlightening as to the effects of the
mercantile theory.1 According to that doctrine a
monopoly of the colonial exports of raw materials
would prove beneficial by encouraging English
manufactures. The balance of trade would thus
be secured, and the precious metals would come
into the kingdom. " If England imported the raw
materials from the colonies she could pay for the
same in manufactures; the precious metals would

1 See especially, Beer, Commercial Policy^ 43-65, 91-106.

58 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1705

not be drained from England, but might even flow
thither from the colonies. The question whether
the balance of trade was unfavorable to both Eng-
land and the colonies, regarded as a unit, affected
the economists and statesmen but little. What they
sought was a favorable balance for England alone." 1
New articles, therefore, were enumerated from
time to time. Thus in 1705 rice and molasses
were put upon the list. The war of the Spanish
Succession was then at hand. Accordingly naval
stores were enumerated and bounties offered for
their production. Copper and furs came next in
1722. Tobacco "formed one-half of all the colonial
exports."2 The enumeration with the excessive
import duties did not in the end prove a serious in-
jury to Virginia. There were compensations. The
growth of tobacco in England — which at one time
promised to become important — was prohibited; a
much higher duty was laid upon the Spanish and
Portuguese product; while the greater part of the
charge on that of Virginia was returned on re-ex-
portation, "between two-thirds and four-fifths" of
the entire crop being thus carried to other countries.
Nevertheless, the price fell — partly on account of
over-production — and in 1733 the planters protested
against the rate.3

1 Beer, Commercial Policy, 43.

2 3 and 4 Anne, chap, v., § 12, chap, x., § 8; 8 George I., chap.

xviii., § 22, chap, xv., § 24; Ashley, Surveys, 316.

3 Ashley, Surveys, 316-319; Beer, Commercial Policy, 50, 51,
citing The Case of the Planters of Tobacco.

1735] COLONIAL SYSTEM

59

The first effect of the enumeration of rice, the
staple product of South Carolina, was to deprive
that colony of her monopoly of the Portuguese
market. Consequently the law was relaxed. In
1730 South Carolina and in 1735 Georgia were
allowed to send rice directly to any port south of
Cape Finisterre, provided it was exported in ships
built or owned in Great Britain. For in this in-
stance, apparently, the colonists were excluded from
a share in the profits of carrying their own goods.
" Immediately American rice regained control of its
former market."1 The enumeration of furs in 1722,
though accompanied by a heavy reduction in the
import duty, did not increase the supply for the
English market. The trade was already passing
rapidly into French hands ; and " neither restriction
nor favor" had much effect upon a business " bound
speedily to disappear."2 The placing of sugar and
molasses on the list did not directly affect the con-
tinental colonies. It gave occasion, however, for
the Molasses Act of 1733, which will be again re-
ferred to.

Equally instructive is the history of the bounty
system. By the statute of 1705, already men-
tioned, renewed and supplemented by later acts,
liberal premiums were granted on colonial masts,
hemp, tar, pitch, and allied products sent to Eng-

1 3 George I., chap. xxviii.,§ 2; 8 George II., chap, xix.; Beer,
Commercial Policy, 53.

2 Ashley, Surveys, 315,316; Beer, Commercial Policy, 57-62.

6o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1714

land; while in 172 1 hemp and in 1722 all kinds
of lumber were freed from English import duties.1
A monopoly of these products, which the plantations
might thus be stimulated to produce, would, it was
hoped, create a steady market for English manu-
factures. To some extent the colonies were bene-
fited by the experiment. The premium on indigo
granted in 1748 was successful.2 In the southern
plantations tar and pitch were produced and ex-
ported in considerable quantities. Between 17 14
and 1774, it is alleged, £1,609,345 sterling were paid
in premiums on colonial goods carried to British
ports.3

Yet in the main the bounty system was a failure.
For their staple products — their fish, lumber, and
ship-timber — the northern plantations found their
best market in Spain, Portugal, and the West
Indies. The bounty system proved to be a vain
effort to draw them from this lucrative commerce
into new industries for the sake of the mother-
country. Moreover, the disputes arising with the
navy board touching claims for bounty, and with
the king's officers regarding the execution of the
laws for the protection of the forests, were a con-
stant source of bad feeling. It is impossible, con-
cludes a careful writer, "to determine to what ex-

1 12 Anne, stat. 1., chap. ix. ; 8 George T., chap, xii.; 2 George
II., chap, xxxv.; 16 George II., chap, xxvi.; 24 George II. f
chap, lvii.; 31 George II., chap. xxxv.

2 21 George II., chap, xxx., § 1 ; 28 George II.. chap, xxv., § 1.
9 Rights of Great Britain Asserted, 87.

1763] COLONIAL SYSTEM

61

tent the irritation of the New England woodsmen
may have laid the foundation for the resentment
which culminated in 1776"; but "so far as one
branch of industry is concerned, the economic
independence of New England was declared and
maintained many years before the final rupture
with Great Britain.' ' 1

Various circumstances favored the early rise of
manufactures in the colonies. Everywhere there
was plenty of iron, and the supply of fuel for smelt-
ing was unlimited. Wool for homespun and for a
time beaver for hats could be found in abundance.
The forests were filled with the best timber in the
world for ship -building. Moreover, among the peo-
ple were many skilled artisans from Europe, nota-
bly from Ireland, England, and France. But there
was another cause more potent than even these
natural conditions. The economic policy of Parlia-
ment had partially deprived the colonists of the
means of importing the manufactures which they
needed. The restrictive laws by interfering with
the profitable foreign market had lessened the
supply of ready money with which to" make good the
unfavorable balance of trade with England ; besides,
who could say when those laws might be more
rigidly enforced.

On the other hand, the corn laws enacted during
the reign of Charles II. had closed the English

1 Lord, Industrial Experiments, 56, 87, 123, passim. Cf. Beer,
Commercial Policy, 91-106; Channing, Navigation Laws, 16-19.

VOL. VIII. — 6

62 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1699

market to the staples which the colonists might
have exchanged for manufactured goods. In the
interest of the land -owner, "prohibitory customs
duties were levied on agricultural products, such as
rye, barley, peas, beans, oats, and wheat";1 the
importation of provisions, including beef, pork,
bacon, and apparently butter and cheese, were
prohibited; and a discriminating duty was laid on
oil and blubber imported in colonial ships.2 "Thus,"
concludes Beer, "New England, and later the
middle colonies, not being allowed to exchange
their normal products for England's manufactures,
were forced to begin manufacturing for themselves." 3
This unforeseen result was intolerable to the
disciples of the mercantile theory. According to
that theory the colonies were useful chiefly as con-
sumers of English goods for which they were ex-
pected to supply the raw materials. Accordingly,
having forced American manufactures into exist-
ence by one economic blunder, Parliament tried
to destroy them by another. The woollen industry
was attacked in 1699; the exportation of beaver
hats of American production was forbidden in 1732 ;
while in 1750 the manufacture of rolled iron and of
steel was restrained.4

1 Saxby, British Customs, cited in Beer, Commercial Policy,
74, 111-114. Cf. 'Lord, Industrial Experiments, 124-139.

2 18 Charles II., chap, ii.; 32 Charles II., chap, ii., § 9; 25
Charles II., chap. vii. 3 Beer, Commercial Policy, 75.

4 10 and 11 William III., chap, x., § 19; 5 George II., chap,
xxii.; 23 George II., chap. xxix.

1767]

COLONIAL SYSTEM

63

Such in character was the old restrictive system.
Its triple monopoly of shipping, trade, and manu-
facture had the full and hearty approval of economic
writers. Josiah Child — whose book was written in
1665 and first published in enlarged form in 1668 —
frankly lays it down "that all colonies, or plantations,
do endanger their mother-kingdoms, of which the
trades of such plantations are not confined by severe
laws, and good execution of those laws, to the
mother-kingdom"; and that in particular "New-
England is the most prejudicial plantation to the
kingdom of England."1

Joshua Gee, an adviser of the board of trade,
"who is said to have advised an American stamp
act by parliament," produced a book in 1729 whose
spirit is entirely in harmony with that of the colonial
system. To make the plantations more profitable
to Great Britain, he would "strengthen" the nav-
igation act and imitate the policy of Spain and
other European states in preventing "their natural
born Subjects from going upon such Manufactures
as doe interfere with theirs at home."2 In rec-
ognition of the soundness of Gee's doctrine a new
edition of his work was brought out in 1767, just as
the new revenue acts were being matured. John
Ashley in 1741 pleads for a mitigation of the
rigor of some of the laws affecting the colonies. Yet

1 Child, New Discourse of Trade, 134, 135.

2 Gee, Trade and Navigation, 48-53, 77. Cf. Bancroft, United
States (ed. of 1885), II., 241.

64 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1660

his point of view is the same as that of his prede-
cessors. If he is more humane, it is because lenity
will render the plantations — those " junior Branches "
of the empire — more profitable to the mother-
country.1 But in the works cited, neither Ashley
nor Gee, as sometimes alleged,2 appears to have
advised the taxing of the colonies for revenue; al-
though, had the duty imposed been lowered as
Ashley suggested, and the molasses act of 1733 en-
forced, it would have become, in fact as well as in
form, a revenue act.3

It may seem strange that for a century a system
so selfish in motive and so false in principle should
have been borne without more serious protest. The
reasons, however, are not far to seek. The system
as actually administered did not prevent the great
material prosperity of the colonists; they had a
commerce profitable to them, and they had a po-
litical relation of great significance. On the one
hand, from England they got capital and credit;
under the English law their property and civil rights
were secured; their commerce was carried on under
the protection of the British flag; and in some
measure they were partners of Englishmen at home
in the very monopolies which they endured. In-
deed, it is believed that the exclusion of foreign

1 Ashley, Memoirs and Considerations , 13-35, passim; pt. ii.
(London, 1743), 96 and Preface.

'E.g., Scott, Development of Const. Liberty, 215-219.

* Ashley, Memoirs and Considerations , pt. ii., Preface,
where a tax for revenue is discouraged; also 42.

1733] COLONIAL SYSTEM 65

competition in the carrying trade actually "stimu-
lated ship-building and the shipping interest in the
colonies."

Furthermore, the making of England the staple
for the exchange of colonial and European goods was
not a great hardship ; for it is almost certain that the
English middleman would have had the bulk of this
trade without the aid of restrictive laws. Even
the harsh restraint of manufactures was quietly
accepted, because, as it turned out, investments in
land and other enterprises were found more lucra-
tive.1 On the other hand, the colonists enjoyed local
self-government and were relieved from contribut-
ing directly to the imperial revenues. They were
expected to aid in their own defence; but because
they " were not a part of the realm of England " they
were not taxed to support the army when sent
against a foreign foe. They shared more actively
in the functions of political life than most of them
could have done in the old home.

Why, then, can the old colonial system be regarded
as the primary cause of the Revolution ? Again the
answer is near at hand. It was wrong in principle
and degrading in motive. Such a r6gime of political
and economic paternalism could not long be en-
dured by a robust and liberty-loving people dwell-
ing three thousand miles away from the seat of
power. In American history as elsewhere the value
of sentiments must not be overlooked. Psychic

1 See especially Ashley, Surveys, 317-360.

66 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1733

causes are in the end more potent than material
causes. Besides, the paternal system had always
been the source of more or less irritation and dis-
content. Indeed, there is something misleading in
representing the privileges permitted by it as "com-
pensations." Were they not rights which in fuller
measure the colonies, more justly looked upon as
integral parts of the British nation, ought to have
enjoyed without paying an extra price for them?

It must not be forgotten that in both of its aspects
the colonial system was laxly administered. The
prerogative was but fitfully enforced. The laws
of trade were systematically evaded, although so
far as the European traffic is concerned the amount
of smuggling seems to have been less than is com-
monly supposed.1 The failure during a century
to make any serious effort to execute these laws in
effect established a prescriptive right to such in-
dulgence which could not be denied with safety.
The molasses act of 1733, whose execution would
have destroyed the most lucrative trade of the
northern colonies, was a dead letter. It remained,
nevertheless, a social menace. Who could say at
what moment prerogative and Parliament might
unite in its execution, or when it might be made in
fact a revenue law?

This moment came at the close of the French and
Indian War. Just as the American people were be-
coming aware of their real strength, faintly per-

1 Ashley, Surveys, 336-360.

1763] COLONIAL SYSTEM 67

ceiving the great destiny which awaited them, the
British ministry made the fatal resolve of rigidly
enforcing the acts of navigation and trade and of
depriving the colonists of those very li compensa-
tions" which thus far had enabled them quietly to
endure the colonial system. What would be the
reply of the American people?

CHAPTER IV

THE FIRST PROTEST OP MASSACHUSETTS

d76i)

AFTER a century and a quarter of discussion
J \ the American Revolution is to - day clearly
emerging as an event of first rate importance in
social as well as political history. In that discussion
the wrong point of view has often been taken.
On the one hand the struggle has been looked upon
as a war of liberation from a despotism imposed
on the colonies as if through conscious malice; on
the other as a needless revolt inspired mainly by a
few hot-headed demagogues taking advantage of a
blundering royal policy. The second error, which
some American and many British writers have
committed, is not less grave than the first; for the
Revolution was indeed a movement for liberation,
not from a consciously planned tyranny, but from
-a regime, economic and political, which was ham-
pering the social growth of the colonies.

According to the usual definition, the American
Revolution, unlike the French Revolution, is polit-
ical and not social in character. It is not regarded
as a struggle against class privilege. Yet in a very

68

1763] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 69

real sense the old colonial regime treated the pro-
vincials as an inferior class. As dominions the
colonies were in theory subjected to the rigor of
the royal prerogative while the favored people who
remained in England were being freed from it; as
communities they were valued chiefly as feeders of
British trade. A system so artificial and so humil-
iating could not long prevail with a proud and self-
respecting people becoming aware of their strength.
If the American Revolution was not a conscious
social revolution, it was at any rate a struggle for
free social expansion. "Of all events of English
history," declares Seeley, "it is perhaps the Amer-
ican Revolution which has suffered most from the
application of these wrong tests." It "is an event
not only of greater importance, but on an altogether
higher level of importance than almost any other
in modern English history," for "it . . . called into
existence a new state."1

The American Revolution is unique, not only for
its significance, but also in its form and progress.
Like the French Revolution it is dramatic. The
action unfolds itself with epic precision: at each
shifting of the scene the right actor takes his place.
But no other revolution has from the start produced
leaders so thoroughly disciplined by experience for
its guidance: each action is explained by learned
and skilful argument; more than twelve years are
given up to debate before the first blow is struck.

1 Seeley, Expansion of England, 142, 144, 147.

7o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1714

No other revolution is so instructive to the student
of political science: the entire process of state
building goes on before his eyes, and the reason for
each step is clearly and exhaustively expounded
by the builders as they proceed. For enduring
quality, the forensic and constitutional literature
of our Revolutionary epoch is not matched in the
entire history of political struggle.

The speech of James Otis against the writs of
assistance, if not the opening, was at any rate the
prelude of the Revolutionary drama.1 Previous to
the close of the French war in America the acts of
trade had brought no profit to the British treasury.
The cost of maintaining the commercial system
was enormous. During the sixty years between
17 14 and 1774, on this account, including probably
the support of the American fleet, the exchequer
had paid out not less than £34,697,142 sterling, a
sum greater, it is alleged, " than the estimated value
of the whole real and personal property in the
colonies."2 Grenville discovered that the entire
''revenue derived by England from the custom-
houses in America amounted to between 1,000/. and
2,000/. a year; that for the purpose of collecting this
revenue the English exchequer paid annually be-
tween 7,000/. and 8,000/.; and that the chief cus-
tom - house officers appointed by the crown had

1 Cf. Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 30, et seq.

2 The Rights of Great Britain Asserted, 82; Chamberlain, "The
Revolution Impending," in Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI., 6.

1760] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 71

treated their offices as sinecures, and by leave of the
treasury resided habitually in England." 1 A vast
amount of dutiable goods, both from Europe and
the foreign West Indies, was continually being
smuggled into the country, and the local officers
either connived at the illicit traffic or were helpless
to prevent it.

From the beginning of the French war there were
ominous signs that a more rigid execution of the
laws was resolved upon. Governor Shirley of
Massachusetts is believed to have been influential
in suggesting the new policy. In particular he led
the clamor, elsewhere referred to, for raising a
revenue on the colonies by act of Parliament.2
During the war the colonial merchants, sometimes
with French or Dutch passports or under flags of
truce granted by the American governors, had kept
up an active trade with the enemy in the sugar
islands and even on the main land. At the sug-
gestion of Halifax in 1756, and again in 1760
through Pitt's instructions, the governors were
commanded to put a stop to the practice.

If this conduct of the colonial merchants was un-
patriotic, it must be confessed that necessity af-
forded a plausible excuse. How else were they to
contribute their share to the support of the war
without the money gained from the West India

1 Lecky, England, III., 333, citing Grenville Papers, II., 114;
see also Grenville, The Regulations Lately Made, 57.

2 See above, chap. i.

72 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1660

trade ? They were willing to tax themselves heavily
for that purpose; but when also, suggests an English
critic of the British policy, they "were required to
desist absolutely from all commercial dealings with
their best customers, their good friends, the enemy,
the sacrifice seemed too great even for their simple
loyalty." Indeed, the alleged purpose of "starv-
ing" the French out of the West Indies is regarded
by the same writer as a cause of the American
rebellion.1

The machinery for the rigid administration of the
commercial code was ample if zealously employed.2
In England, since 1696, the Board of Trade and
Plantations was exercising general authority un-
der the Privy Council. This body worked mainly
through the governors, who in their respective
provinces were sworn to a faithful execution of the
laws of trade and navigation.3 Below the governor
were the naval officer, the collector of customs, and
the surveyor-general, besides the collectors and the
surveyors and searchers for each port.4 Originally
prosecutions for breach of the trade laws were tried
in the ordinary colonial courts of record, but juries
were slow to convict. Hence, in 1697, separate

lHall, "Chatham's Colonial Policy," in Am. Hist. Rev.tV.,
666.

1 The best accounts are Greene, Provincial America (American
Nation, VI.), chap, xvi.; Beer, Commercial Policy, 123.

8 13 Charles II., chap, xriii.; supplemented by 7 and 8 William
III., chap. xxii.

4 Spotewood, Lett&rs, I., 29; 7 and 8 William III., chap, xxii.,

§§ 5. «•

1696] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 73

admiralty courts for the colonies were created and
these could act without a jury.1 In England rev-
enue cases were tried, not in the courts of admiral-
ty, but in the court of the exchequer, where juries
were employed.

But the most effective instrument in the pre-
vention of illicit trade was the "writ of assistance"
created during the reign of Charles II. 2 According
to the late Justice Horace Gray — whose critical
essay should be used with John Adams's report of
Otis' s speech — this warrant for the seizure of un-
customed goods appears to be derived from the
ancient "writ of assistance" or "writ of aid" ad-
dressed to the sheriff from the court of exchequer;
and it is "perhaps copied from the sheriff's patent
of assistance." 3 By statute the writ is issued from
the court of exchequer. It is general in form, au-
thorizing the official in the day-time to search
any vaults, cellars, warehouses, or other suspected
places where he may suppose dutiable goods to be
hidden, while ships lying in or near the port may
thus be entered either by day or night. It is valid
for an indefinite time, or until six months after the
demise of the crown, and no "return" to the court
of issue is required. In England this warrant was

1 Washburn, Judicial Hist, of Mass., 172; Chalmers, Revolt, I.,
273-275-

2 12 Charles II., chap, xix.; confirmed by 13 Charles II.,
Stat. 1, chap, i., and later acts; supplemented by 13 and 14
Charles II., chap, xi., § 5; and often re-enacted.

8 Gray, Writs of Assistance, in Quincy, Reports, 395, et seq.

74 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1695

then in use ; and there in practically the same form
as under William III. it continued to be enforced
for many years after the Revolution. Yet it is
easy to see that so dangerous a power, especially in
the hands of petty officials, was capable of serious
abuse.

A statute of William III. had expressly enjoined
that the same aid should be given to the custom-
house officers in America as was required by law
to be rendered in England.1 But for more than
half a century such writs were not used in the
colonies. According to Hutchinson, "the collectors
and inferior officers of the customs, merely by the
authority derived from their commissions, had
forcibly entered warehouses, and even dwelling
houses, upon information that contraband goods
were concealed in them. The people grew uneasy
under the exercise of this assumed authority, and
some stood upon their defence against such entries,
whilst others were bringing their actions in the law
against the officers, for past illegal entries, or at-
tempts to enter."

Governor Shirley put himself for a time equally
in the wrong: as civil magistrate he "gave out
his warrants to enter"; but learning that such a
course was illegal, he directed the " officers to apply
for warrants from the superior court ; and, from that
time, writs issued, not exactly in the form, but of
the nature, of writs of assistance issued from the

1 7 and 8 William III., chap. xxii.,§ 5.

1760] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 75

court of exchequer in England."1 The truth of
this statement is confirmed by the documentary-
evidence. In June, 1755, the superior court, Chief -
Justice Sewall presiding, issued , the first of these
memorable writs to Charles Paxton, surveyor of the
port of Boston. Similar authority was presently
conferred upon other officers.2 Many seizures were
made. " The third part of the forfeiture of molasses
which belonged to the province amounted before
1 761 to nearly five hundred pounds in money."3
Informers were rewarded for secret information,
and popular feeling was kept in a state of continual
irritation.

The death of George II., October 25, 1760,
brought matters to a crisis, for in six months the
validity of all existing writs would cease. Chief -
Justice Stephen Sewall, who doubted the legality
of the writs, died just after the new governor,
Francis Bernard, arrived in Boston (August 2),
bringing instructions to "be aiding and assisting to
the collectors and other officers of our admiralty
and customs in putting in execution" the laws
of trade. George III. was proclaimed in Massa-
chusetts December 30. On the same day Thomas
Hutchinson, who already held the posts of council-
lor, judge of probate, and lieutenant-governor, was

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 92, 93.

2 Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 402, et seq.

3 Chamberlain, "The Revolution Impending," in Winsor,
Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI., 12.

76 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1761

commissioned as chief justice of the superior court,
and on January 27, 1761, he took his seat on the
bench in Middlesex.

James Otis, the elder, had been promised the first
vacancy on the bench by both Shirley and Pownall ;
but, according to John Adams, Hutchinson was ap-
pointed by Bernard "for the very purpose of decid-
ing the fate of the writs of assistance, and all other
causes in which the claims of Great Britain might
be implicated."1 This statement is scarcely sus-
tained by the evidence. Hutchinson was brought
forward for the place by his friends; and at the
time of his commission application for a renewal
of the writs had not yet been made as Adams
alleges.2 Yet it can hardly be doubted that the
question of their legality was already a matter of
earnest discussion^ The petition of the Boston
merchants for a hearing against the writs, and the
memorial of Lechmere, the surveyor-general, to be
heard in reply, were filed in February, 1761. On
the 24th the case of Charles Paxton, who sought a
new warrant, came before the superior court sitting
under the presidency of Chief -Justice Hutchinson, in
the council chamber of the old Town House in
Boston. For the writs appeared the attorney-
general, Jeremiah Gridley, and the merchants were
represented by Oxenbridge Thacher and James Otis.

No full report of this famous trial exists. Our

1 Adams, Works, X., 183, 247, 280.
* Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 409-411.

i7<5i] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 77

knowledge of it is derived almost wholly from John
Adams's notes taken at the first hearing,1 together
with his later and more extended report,2 and the
letters addressed by him to William Tudor fifty-
seven years after the event.3 Gridley, the foremost
lawyer of Massachusetts, confined himself closely
to proving the technical validity of the writs and
the legality of their issue by the superior court, not
touching upon the broader aspects of the case. He
"argued," says Adams, "with his characteristic
learning, ingenuity, and dignity," all depending,
however, on the "if the Parliament of Great Britain
is the sovereign legislature of all the British em-
pire."4 It is true, Gridley admitted, that the
" common privileges of Englishmen are taken away
in this case"; but it is justified by necessity — the
"benefit of the revenue," just as necessity justifies
the distraint of goods and chattels by a local officer
in the recovery of taxes.5

Thacher followed on the other side, speaking
"with the softness of manners, the ingenuity and
cool reasoning, which were remarkable in his amiable
character. But Otis was a flame of fire! with a
promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of re-

1 Adams, Works, II., 521-523.

3 As given by Minot, Hist, of Mass., II., 87-99; by Tudor,
Life of Otis, 62, et seq.; and in the copy by Israel Keith: see
Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 479-^482. A brief minute of the No-
vember hearing is in Quincy, 51, et seq.

9 Adams, Works, X., Index. 4 Ibid., 247.

6 Minot, Hist, of Mass., II., 89, 90.

VOL. VIII. — 7

?8 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1761

search, a rapid summary of historical events and
dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic
glance of his eye into futurity, and a torrent of
impetuous eloquence, he hurried away everything
before him. American independence was then and
there born ; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then
and there sown . . . every man of a crowded audience
appeared to go away, as I did, ready to take arms
against writs of assistance. Then and there was
the first scene of the first act of opposition to the
arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there
the child independence was born. In fifteen years,
namely in 1776, he grew up to manhood, and
declared himself free."1

The fervid rhetoric of the venerable patriot who
in his twenty-fifth year had been inspired by his
hero's words may be accepted with some grain of
allowance. Yet that Otis' s speech belongs to the
epoch-making utterances there is small reason to
doubt. It was a strong and a timely protest against
a dangerous system; but its power was not due
wholly to its quality as a discourse, for Otis's style
of speaking and writing was rugged, with small
claim to elegance of diction. It struck a responsive
chord in the breasts of his countrymen. He gave
voice to that which was moving their spirits; and
is not that often the secret of the highest eloquence ?

Before the trial Otis had resigned his office of
advocate-general, because he was not willing to

1 Adams, Works, X., 247, 248.

1761] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 79

appear in support of the writs, which he believed
to be illegal and tyrannical. This sacrifice his
enemies explained as the result of pique because
of his father's disappointment. But when has
time-serving cynicism ever failed to sneer at the
idealism which rebukes it or passes its ken ? Justice
Gray has well said that the " charge commonly
made by the supporters of prerogative against
James Otis, that his subsequent public course was
dictated solely by revenge . . . , may be classed with
D'Israeli's insinuation that John Hampden's re-
fusal to pay ship money was occasioned by an
ancient grudge against the sheriff who levied it." 1

In the argument, which took up several hours,
Otis first referred to his resignation. " I renounced
that office, and I argue this cause from the same
principle; and I argue it with the greater pleasure,
as it is in favor of British liberty, at a time when
we hear the greatest monarch upon earth declaring
from his throne that he glories in the name of Briton,
and that the privileges of his people are dearer to
him than the most valuable prerogatives of his
crown ; and as it is in opposition to a kind of power,
the exercise of which, in former periods of English
history, cost one king of England his head, and
another his throne."

Having delivered this telling and daring blow at
George III., he next exposed the dangerous charac-
ter of the writs. Admitting that special writs

* Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 411; Nugent, Hampden, 224,

80 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1761

directed to special officers to search certain places
were legal, he denounced the general warrant in use
as "the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the
most destructive of English liberty and the funda-
mental principles of law, that ever was found in an
English law-book"; as a weapon "that places the
liberty of every man in the hands of every petty
officer."

He then boldly appealed to guarantees of civil
liberty, to principles of right, higher than statutory
authority. "No act of parliament can establish
such a writ " ; for " an act against the constitution is
void; an act against natural equity is void"; and
"the executive courts must pass such acts into
disuse." This principle, destined to become so
vital in our national life, is powerfully supported
even by English authorities.1 Legalism may, in-
deed, deny that a court can in practice actually
nullify an act of Parliament as contrary to the
constitution; but Otis proclaimed a doctrine which
British statesmen might well have heeded. He
was simply going one step further than Brougham
many years later, who affirms that "things maybe
legal and yet unconstitutional." 2

Departing from the immediate question before
the court — according to Adams's later recollection3 —

1 Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 517, 520-530; Adams, Works, II.,

522, 525.

2 Brougham, in Wensleydale Peerage Case, 5 H. L. Cases, 979.
'Adams, Works, X., ziA'Z^I, 328~338, 345. 35 1 1 Tudor,

Life of Otis, 84.

1761] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 81

Otis next arraigned the whole mercantile colonial
system as contrary to natural equity. But it is
highly probable that in Adams's failing memory the
arguments of more advanced stages in the great
revolutionary debate were blended with those
brought forward in the case of the writs.

Apparently the majority of the judges were with
Otis; and the judgment would have been against
the writs had it been then given. The decision,
however, was suspended in order that Hutchinson
might obtain "information of the practice in Eng-
land.' * At the November hearing "it appeared
that such writs issued from the exchequer, of course,
when applied for; and this was judged sufficient to
warrant the like practice in the province."1 From
that time until after the Stamp Act writs of assistance
were freely issued.2 If strict legalism were to pre-
vail, the decree of the court in this case was probably
just. As a result of his careful inquiry, Justice
Gray reaches the conclusion that the "decision of
Hutchinson and his associates has been too strongly
condemned as illegal: and that there was at least
reasonable ground for holding, as matter of mere
law, that the British parliament had power to bind
the colonies; that even a statute contrary to the
constitution could not be declared void by the
judicial courts; that by the English statutes, as

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 94. Cf. the inaccurate
statements of Adams, Works, X., 233.

2 Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 405-434.

82 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1761

practically construed by the courts in England,
writs of assistance might be general in form; that
the superior court . . . had the power of the English
court of exchequer; and that the writs of assistance
prayed for, though contrary to the spirit of the
English constitution, could hardly be refused by a
provincial court, before general warrants had been
condemned in England, and before the revolution
had actually begun in America." Yet in none of
the other provinces, except in New Hampshire and
New York, does it appear that such writs were ever
actually issued by the courts, although they were
sometimes applied for.1

Otis' s argument aided powerfully in the formation
of public opinion. In the next May he was re-
warded by a seat in the assembly; and for several
years he dominated the revolutionary scene in
Massachusetts. A great writer refers to his speech
as "incendiary." 2 It did, indeed, set fire to the
tinder which British policy was amply providing.
Yet if historical truth is violated by exaggerating
the importance of Otis's argument, there is equal
danger in minimizing it. With increasing knowl-
edge it is becoming easier to see that its meaning
was very great. The validity of the writs of assist-
ance involved a vital change in a long-standing
policy. Strict enforcement of the acts of trade
meant commercial ruin to New England. To the

1 Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 501-512, 540.

2 Lecky, England, III., 331.

i8i7] MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST PROTEST 83

northern merchant the illicit trade with the French
West Indies and in the Spanish main alone was virt-
ually the bread of life. If from the time of its en-
actment the molasses act had been rigorously en-
forced by writs of assistance it is not unlikely that
the Revolutionary contest would have been hast-
ened by thirty years. Otis and his associates were
but opening the struggle for constitutional liberty
which was already at hand in the mother-country.
For the writs of assistance were similar in their
arbitrary character to those "general warrants"
whose use two years later in the case of Wilkes
stirred the resentment of patriots on both sides of
the sea.

Furthermore, in 181 7 the British board of customs
forbade the issue of a writ of assistance to any
officer, "unless he should previously make oath be-
fore a magistrate of his belief and grounds of be-
lief that smuggled goods were lodged in a certain
house." Henceforth, in harmony with Otis's inter-
pretation of the original law, only "special" writs
were to be issued in England, and "thus the reason-
ableness of the position of the colonies was finally
vindicated in the mother-country." 1

1 Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 535.

CHAPTER V

THE FIRST PROTEST OF VIRGINIA

(1758-1763)

HE strife between the assemblies and the

1 governors, royal and proprietary, was one of
the chief incidents of the colonial system which
prepared the temper of the people for resistance.1
Encroachments of the prerogative were more and
more resented. The growing sensitiveness in Massa-
chusetts is disclosed in 17 61 by the bitter contest
over an alleged misappropriation of the colony's
share of forfeitures under the molasses act. The
superior court decided against the colony, thus in-
creasing the " animosity which existed between the
contending parties in the province. " It is significant
that Otis, counsel for the colony, animadverted on
the court of admiralty, where the abuse arose,
"as not congenial with the spirit of the English
constitution." 2

An event still more enlightening as to the state

1 Greene, Provincial America {American Nation, VI.), chaps,
xii., xiii.; Greene, Provincial Governor, chaps, viii.-xi.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 89, 91; Minot, Hist,
of Mass., II., 81, 87.

84

1762] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 85

of popular feeling took place in 1762. Without
legislative authority the governor had fitted out a
sloop for the protection of the fishing-boats on the
coast of Nova Scotia at a cost of some ^400. An
acrimonious wrangle ensued between him and the
assembly, which saw in this act an invasion of its
jealously guarded right of granting all supplies.1
An incidental result of the contest was a pamphlet
from Otis containing a bold and eloquent plea for
civil liberty and democratic equality.2

While party antagonisms were thus being stirred
in Massachusetts more serious resistance was pro-
voked elsewhere by assertion of the royal preroga-
tive. One of the most dearly prized safeguards of
liberty won at the revolution of 1688 was the in-
dependence of the courts. In England, after the
Act of Settlement, the judges held office during
good behavior. They could not be punished for
conscientious performance of duty by summary
dismissal at the king's pleasure. Thus far the
provincial judiciary had in fact enjoyed the same
security of tenure, but now, a year after the acces-
sion of George III., the colonies were to be denied
the guaranties of the Bill of Rights and again sub-
jected to the arbitrary prerogative which had cost
James II. his throne.

1 Minot, Hist, of Mass., II., 119, et seq.; Hutchinson, Hist, of
Mass. Bay, III., 97-108; Tudor, Life of Otis, 117, et seq.; Adams,
Works, X., 303, 310, 311.

2 Otis, Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representa-
tives.

86 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1761

In October, 17 61, after the death of James de
Lancey, chief justice of New York, Benjamin Pratt,
a Boston lawyer, was appointed to the office " during
the king's pleasure.' ' 1 The province was at once
aroused. Some of the puisne judges at first ab-
solutely refused to serve unless their commissions
were renewed during good behavior. The assembly
declined to provide salaries " except on the express
condition" that independent commissions should be
issued. Lieutenant-Governor Colden — who at the
king's command had made the appointment — at
first seemed to favor the tenure of the judges during
good behavior, provided their salaries were also
made perpetual ; yet in January, 1 7 62 , he wrote to the
board of trade strongly favoring the unconstitu-
tional policy ; but on his arrival Monckton, the new
governor, censured it before the council. Pratt
himself, after his selection for the vacant place on
the bench, wrote that "as the parliament at the
revolution thought it the necessary right of English-
men to have the judges safe from being turned out
by the crown, the people of New York claim the
right of Englishmen in this respect." 2

Finally, on recommendation of the board of trade,
the chief justice's salary was provided from the
royal quit-rents. " Such a salary," suggested Pratt,
"could not fail to render the office of great service

lN. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII. , 467, 470, 500, 505,
528, 705, 797.

2 Bancroft. United States (ed. of 1885), II., 551, 552, 557.

1763] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 87

to his majesty, in securing the dependence of the
colony on the crown, and its commerce to Great
Britain. " 1 Pratt died in 1763. He was a worthy
man, with a high place at the bar, but he held views
which might well have fitted him to serve an ar-
bitrary prince. "The people," said he, " ought to
be ignorant; and our free schools are the bane of
society; they make the lowest of the people in-
finitely conceited." 2 By advice of the board of
trade the course taken in New York was adopted as
a general policy. "On the ninth of December,
1 7 61, the instruction went forth through Egremont,
to all colonial governors, to grant no judicial com-
missions but during pleasure." 3 The next year
Hardy, the governor of New Jersey, was summarily
dismissed from his office for disobeying this com-
mand. It may not have been the royal purpose
to make the courts dependent, but worthy motives
cannot rightly be pleaded in justification of an un-
constitutional policy.

After the reign of Anne no act of Parliament was
ever vetoed by the crown. Any attempt to do so
would have been resented as an invasion of con-
stitutional liberty. In the provinces, however, this
branch of the prerogative was steadily maintained;
and nowhere did its exercise cause more discontent
than in Virginia. By royal grant the governor and

1N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 501.

2 Adams, Works, II., 97.

3 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), II., 552.

88 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1748

assembly enjoyed the right of enacting statutes, if
not repugnant to the laws of the realm. Within
three months after passage all bills were to be sub-
mitted to the king for approval or disallowance.
The veto, through the Privy Council, was freely
exercised, and gave rise to complaints. For in-
stance, ten acts adopted in the revision of 1748
were "repealed" by proclamation October 31,
17 5 1, although the fact was not communicated to
the assembly until April, 1752. Under royal in-
structions to the governor, a measure once vetoed
could not be re-enacted without "express leave" of
the king. Accordingly, the council and burgesses
united in an address praying that the repealed
bills might be re-enacted. By the "antient con-
stitution and usage" of the colony, they declare, all
new statutes, if not repugnant to the laws of Great
Britain, " have always been taken and held to be in
full force, until your majesty's disallowance thereof
is notified here"; but acts once approved by the
king "cannot by the legislature here be revised,
altered, or amended, without a clause therein to
suspend the execution thereof 'til your majesty's
pleasure shall be known therein, even tho' our
necessities ... be ever so pressing." Therefore,
they ask that in such cases the suspending clause
may not be enforced, promising " not to enact any
laws to take effect immediately that your majesty
hath instructed your governor . . . not to pass
without a suspending clause." Such enforcement,

1761] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 89

they say, " will subject us to great hardships and in-
conveniences, since it is not within the reach of
human foresight to form any laws but what may,
from experience, be found to want necessary and
sometimes speedy amendment."1 This reasonable
petition was denied by the crown.

As elsewhere shown, it was the imperial policy
to encourage the slave-trade. American as well as
English merchants shared in this lucrative traffic.
Attempts to restrain it were frowned upon, and
hence many of the acts of the provincial legislatures
imposing duties on slaves imported were disallowed
by the crown. In New England domestic importa-
tion was restrained chiefly because slavery increased
the dependent portion of the community; but the
slave-carrying trade to the sister colonies was not in-
terfered with. Farther south such duties were laid
for more economic and social reasons, sometimes from
dread of slave insurrection.

On both sides of the sea a moral sentiment
against slavery was springing up; but before the
Revolution colonial legislation was very slightly, if
at all, influenced by humane motives. After 1761
two acts of the Virginia assembly, raising the duty
on imported slaves, were vetoed by the crown.2
It is probable that these bills, like several others
passed between 1723 and the Revolution, were

1 Hening, Statutes, V., 432-448, 567; cf. Meade, Old Churches,
I., 217.

2 Hening, Statutes, VIII., 237, 337.

go PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

designed both to raise a revenue and to place a
check upon the slave-trade, for the law-makers were
alarmed by the rate at which negroes were being
brought into the country.1 Their motives were
mainly prudential; they objected to the exercise of
the prerogative, not primarily because the king was
forcing upon them a traffic which they abhorred,
but because they believed their welfare was being
sacrificed in the interest of British merchants. They
demanded a larger share in the control of their own
economic and political affairs. The dislike for this
branch of the royal prerogative was but an instance
of the growing discontent of the colonies with the
whole restrictive system of Great Britain.

Two years later (1763) Patrick Henry made his
memorable protest against the crown's legislative
prerogative in the " parson's cause." Almost from
the beginning tobacco had been the currency of the
province. It was legal tender in the payment of
private and public debts, including taxes and the
stipends of the established clergy. Such a currency
must inevitably shrink or expand in value with the
fortune of the season. A failure in the tobacco crop
"involved the people in general distress; for by law
if the salaries of the clergy and the fees of officers
were not paid in tobacco by the tenth day of April,
the property of delinquents was liable to be dis-

1 Du Bois, Suppression of the Slave-Trade, 12-15. Cf. Spears,
African Slave-Trade, chap, vii.; Williams, Negro Race, I.,

1755] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 91

trained, and if not replevied within five days, to be
sold at auction."1 An act of 1748, confirming a
law of 1696, fixed the salary of the clergy at sixteen
thousand pounds of tobacco a year.

In 1755 a shortage in the tobacco crop threatened
to increase the general distress caused by the heavy
burden of the war taxes. Therefore, to release the
"poor and needy," the assembly passed an act, to
remain in force ten months, allowing all tobacco
dues at the " option of the payer" to be paid either
in kind or in money at the rate of sixteen shillings
and eightpence for each hundred pounds of tobacco.2
Since 1748 this had been the appraised value of
inspected tobacco,3 and it was even " better than the
clergy in general " had commonly received.4 Be-
cause the price set was equal to twopence a pound
the law was called the "twopenny act." The act
was general in its operation and did not apply
merely to the clergy. Yet the latter may have
suffered most, for, although they themselves raised
tobacco on their glebes, they were mainly dependent
for a living upon their salaries ; while^ as they com-
plain, "others have different ways of gain, and if
they lose by the bill one way, they may gain in an-
other/'s

1 Campbell, Virginia, 510. Cf. Bland, Letter to the Clergy, 14.

2 Hening, Statutes, III., 152; VI., 88, 568.

3 Henry, Henry, I., 30.

4 Commissary Dawson, in Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 448.
For a different statement, see Maury, Memoirs of a Huguenot
Family, 402. 6 Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 436.

92 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1758

However, no formal protest followed, though
meetings were held ; some of the clergy sent memo-
rials to their diocesan, the bishop of London, and
Commissary Dawson wrote in their behalf.1 But
the crop was not so bad and the price did not rise so
high as was expected; hence the majority of the
clergy quietly accepted their loss. Among these
was James Maury, plaintiff in the "parson's cause."
"In my own case," he writes, "who am entitled to
upwards of seventeen thousand weight of tobacco
per annum, the difference amounts to a considerable
sum. However, each individual must expect to
share in the misfortunes of the community to
which he belongs."2

Again in 1758, in mere expectancy of a short crop,
a relief act was passed allowing for one year the
payment of all tobacco dues in money at the same
rate of twopence a pound.3 As in the former case
there was no clause suspending the operation of the
act until sanctioned by the crown. Therefore, the
act was represented as a bold defiance of the pre-
rogative As anticipated, the crop was a partial
failure, and the market price of tobacco rose to
about three times the statutory rate. It was a
hardship to the clergy as well as other creditors that
by this law debts were made payable in paper
money which was worthless outside of the colony,

1 Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 434-448. Cf. Meade, Old Churches,
I., 216. 7 Maury. Memoirs of a Huguenot Family, 402.

8 Hening, Statutes, VII., 240, 241.

1758] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST

93

and so could not be used for the purchase of supplies
in England, where they might be had cheaper than
at home.

There was now no lack of resistance by the clergy.
A war of pamphlets ensued. A convention was
held, and an agent sent to England to present their
case before the board of trade.1 In a letter to that
body Sherlock, bishop of London, denounced the act
as "the work of men conscious to themselves that
they were doing wrong"; as an "act of supremacy
. . . inconsistent with the dignity of the crown," and
manifestly tending "to draw the people of the
plantations from their allegiance to the king when
they find that they have a higher power to protect
them." 2 In reply to a pamphlet by Bland,3 it was
asserted that the only "dearth and scarcity" exist-
ing that year in Virginia was "confined to one or
two counties on the James River, and that entirely
by their own fault." For "the cause of the short
crop was want of plants," and the ground might
have been planted "in corn or pease, which always
turned to good account." Though the crop was
short in some places it was on the whole "the best
crop ever made in Virginia," being worth "near
one third more " in cash value than any former crop.4
The act, it was further alleged, was passed in the in-

1 Rev. John Camm, in Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 459.

3 Ibid., 461. 3 Bland, Letter to the Clergy, 7.

4 Rev. William Robinson, in Perry, Hist. Collections, I.
465-467.

VOL. VIII. — 8

94 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1758

terest of the rich, not in that of the poor. The " rich
planters were the gainers by it," for they paid "the
clergy and others to whom they were indebted at one-
third of the price at which they sold their tobacco." 1
This evidence — although ex parte — according to
an American critic, reveals the famous option law
of 1758, "in all its fresh and unadorned rascality." 2
There is small ground for so harsh a judgment. The
motives of the assembly appear to have been just,
although in its effect the act may have dealt un-
fairly with the clergy. The traveller Burnaby, who
chanced just then to be in Virginia, while criticising
the assembly's action, sharply censures the violent
conduct of the clergy. " If, instead of flying out in
invectives against the legislature; of accusing the
governor of having given up the cause of religion by
passing the bill; when, in fact, had he rejected it,
he would never have been able to have got any
supplies during the course of the war, though ever
so much wanted; if, instead of charging the com-
missary with want of zeal for having exhorted them
to moderate measures, they had followed the prudent
councils of that excellent man, and had acted with
more temper and moderation, they might, I am
persuaded, in a very short time, have obtained any
redress they could reasonably have desired. The
people in general were extremely well affected
towards the clergy."3

1 Meade, Old Churches, L, 223. 2 Tyler, Henry, 37.

3 Bumaby, Travels (ed. of 1798), 22.

1759] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 95

By advice of the board of trade the complaints of
the clergy were brought before the Privy Council,
where Lord Hardwicke, in particular, " delivered it as
his sentiment that there was no occasion to dispute
about the authority by which the act was passed,
for that no court in the judicature whatever could
look upon it to be law by reason of its manifest in-
justice alone/'1 On August 10, 1759, the act was
vetoed by the king in council, and through special
instructions the governor was ordered to publish
the fact by proclamation. Fauquier himself was
reprimanded for not rejecting the bill, and he was
threatened with recall.2

Rev. John Camm, agent of the clergy in London,
at once directed his attorney to bring action in the
general court of Virginia for the recovery of his
salary against the vestry of his parish of York
Hampton, if they "should stand out" after learning
the king's decision. "The parish refused to stand
suit, till they had obtained a promise that the ex-
pence would be borne out of the publick funds. Ac-
cordingly an order of the' house of burgesses was
afterwards made that the expence of appeal where
the clergy were concerned should be borne by the
publick," thus bringing the clergy into direct col-
lision with the assembly.3 In 1764, by a vote of
five to four, the general court decided against the

1 According to Commissary Robinson, in Perry, Hist. Collec-
tions, I., 510. 2 Campbell, Virginia, 514.
3 Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 511.

96 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

plaintiff on the ground that the act was valid until
disallowed by the king. Camm then appealed to
the Privy Council, and pending the decision the
" court refused to hear any other similar case."1
The appeal was heard in 1767; but on the alleged
ground of informality it was dismissed, the council
seemingly being tired of the whole matter.2

Without waiting for the issue of Camm's suit some
of the clergy had already brought action in the
county courts. In the case of Rev. Thomas Warring-
ton, of Charles parish, York County, " a jury of his
parishioners found for him considerable damages,
allowing on their oaths that there was about twice
as much justly due to him as the act had granted.
But the point of law was given against him," the
court refusing to enter judgment in his favor. Next
came the suit of Rev. Alexander White, of St.
David's parish in King William. In this instance
" the court refused to meddle in the matter and in-
sisted on leaving" both law and fact "to the jury,
who delivered their verdict" for the defendant.3

The suit which caused most interest was that
of Rev. James Maury, rector of Fredericksville
parish, Louisa, a man of high character. On
November 5, 1763, the county court of Hanover,
where the action was brought, adjudged the act of

1 Henry, Henry, I., 45.

3 Meade, Old Churches, I., 218; Henry, Henry, I., 45.
3 Perry, Hist. Collections, I., 413, 430, 496, 513. Cf. Henry,
Henry, I., 34.

1763] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 97

1758, "to be no law"; so it was ordered that at the
next term "a jury, on a writ of inquiry, should
determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to
damages, and if so, how much." The clergy, look-
ing on this as a test case, were naturally elated;
for the point of law being settled the final issue
seemed foreassured. John Lewis, "who had de-
fended the popular side, retired from the cause as
virtually decided." 1 In their extremity the de-
fendants called in Patrick Henry, a young lawyer,
whose success at the Hanover bar is clearly attested
by the fact that during the three years and a half
since he was licensed to practice he had charged
fees in one thousand one hundred and eighty-five
suits, besides attending to a proportionate amount
of "office" business.2

The suit came to trial on December 1, 1763. A
large crowd attended, including " more than twenty "
of the clergy. On the bench, as presiding magistrate,
sat John Henry, the young advocate's father. The
sheriff was ordered to summon a "select jury."
This he did in a way not wholly to the liking of the
plaintiff, who alleges that, excusing all gentlemen,
the officer made the selection entirely from "the
vulgar herd." It even appears that three or four
of the jurors were dissenters of the sort called " New
Lights." The case for the plaintiff was soon pre-
sented. By the testimony of "the two most con-

1 Campbell, Virginia, 514; Wirt, Henry, 23.
a Henry, Henry, I., 25.

PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1758

siderable purchasers of that county," it was proved
that in 1759 tobacco "had currently sold at 505. per
hundred." 1 It was, therefore, an easy matter to
show the jury how much of the parson's salary was
still legally due.

When Mr. Lyons, the plaintiff's counsel, took his
seat, Patrick Henry rose and made a speech which
is looked upon as a warning of the Revolutionary
contest. More than half a century later William
Wirt clothed in vivid fancy the impression made
by Henry's eloquence on the minds of surviving
hearers. "The jury seemed to have been so com-
pletely bewildered, that they lost sight not only of
the act of 1748, but that of 1758 also; for thought-
less even of the admitted rights of plaintiff, they
had scarcely left the bar, when they returned with
a verdict of one penny damages.'" 2

For the chief points of the argument we are in-
debted to a letter written just twelve days after the
trial by a man in no wise tempted to rhapsodize in
Henry's favor. According to Rev. James Maury,
plaintiff in the suit, the speaker "labored to prove
'that the act of 1758 had every characteristic of a
good law; that it was a law of general utility, and
could not, consistently with what he called the
original compact between king and people, stipulat-
ing piotection on the one hand and obedience on the
other be annulled.' Hence, he inferred, ' that a king,

1 Maury, Memoirs of a Huguenot Family, 420; Wirt, Henry, 25.
a Wirt, Henry, 25-27.

1763] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 99

by disallowing acts of this salutary nature, from
being the father of his people, degenerated into a
tyrant, and forfeits all right to his subjects' obedi-
ence.' He further urged, 'that the only use of an
established church and clergy in society, is to en-
force obedience to civil sanctions, and the ob-
servance of those which are called duties of im-
perfect obligation; that when a clergy ceases to
answer these ends, the community have no further
need of their ministry, and may justly strip them
of their appointments; that the clergy of Virginia,
in this particular instance of their refusing to ac-
quiesce in the law in question, had been so far from
answering that they had most notoriously counter-
acted, those great ends of their institution' . . .
Then he perorates to the following purpose, 'that
excepting they (the jury) were disposed to rivet the
chains of bondage on their own necks, he hoped
they would not let slip the opportunity which now
offered, of making such an example' of the plaintiff
'as might, hereafter, be a warning to himself and
his brethren, not ... to dispute the validity of such
laws, authenticated by the only authority, which,
in his conception, could give force to laws for the
government of this colony, the authority of a legal
representative of a council, and of a kind and
benevolent and patriotic governor.'"

When he came to that part where he referred to
the king as degenerating into a tyrant, "the more
sober part of the audience were struck with horror,

ioo PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1758

Mr. Lyons called out aloud, and with an honest
warmth, to the bench, 'that the gentleman had
spoken treason,' and expressed his astonishment
'that their worships could hear it without emotion,
or any mark of dissatisfaction.' At the same in-
stant, too, amongst some gentlemen in the crowd
behind me, was a confused murmur of Treason,
Treason!"1

It would be as easy to underrate as to overesti-
mate the significance of this event. Patrick Henry's
speech was not wholly a triumph of oratory. Its
deeper meaning consists in its being a protest
against a dangerous system. The relief acts of 1755
and 1758 were probably void from their inception;
and it may be that the clergy were harshly dealt
with both by the law and by the court. Yet, under
the peculiar circumstances, a royal prerogative
which absolutely denied to the colonists the privilege
of self-help through legislation even of temporary
force was fast becoming intolerable. Since they
were so far from the seat of power, they might have
to wait many months for the king's decision. More-
over, his authority was often confessedly exercised
in favor of commercial class privilege regardless of
the wishes or needs of the provincials. Henry's
protest stirred the hearts of the people because it
gave voice to their deepening convictions. In the

1 Maury, Memoirs of a Huguenot Family, 421-423; Hart,
Contemporaries, II., No. 37, pp. 103-106. Cf. Perry, Hist,

Collections, I., 514, 515.

1763] VIRGINIA'S FIRST PROTEST 101

parson's cause private right may have been ob-
scured by the gathering shadow of a public wrong.
Its issue was a forecast of the fate of the established
church in Virginia ; a presage of the Revolutionary
drama which was even then opening with the an-
nouncement of Grenville's policy.

CHAPTER VI

THE FIRST ACT FOR REVENUE FROM THE

COLONIES

(1763-1764)

DURING the year 1763, the British ministry re-
solved to adopt a more vigorous policy for
colonial control. By the scheme then elaborated
under the leadership of Charles Townshend, it was
proposed (1) rigorously to enforce the acts of naviga-
tion and trade ; (2) to raise a revenue on the colonies
by direct and indirect taxation; and (3) to use this
revenue for the support of a standing military force in
America. The first step in carrying out the new
policy was taken by George Grenville while at the
head of the admiralty in Bute's cabinet. Grenville
was an honest man, too independent to be counted
among the " king's friends," but of small talent.
He was devoted heart and soul to the old colonial
system, and referred to the navigation act as "that
palladium of the British commerce.' ' 1 At his in-
stance new powers were now given to the vice-
admiralty courts in the colonies ; and, by an ingenious
device for putting an end to illicit trade, all the

1 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist, XVI., 102.

102

1763] FIRST REVENUE ACT

commanders of British ships - of - war serving in
American waters were authorized to act as custom-
house officers, with the usual share in the contra-
band and confiscated cargoes.1

This unwise measure — put in force by royal order
a few months later (October, 1763) — bore its natural
fruit. It became a standing cause of strife. Naval
officers, often wholly ignorant of the laws which they
were suddenly called upon to administer, would
scarcely fail to be guilty of hasty and arbitrary acts.
In particular, the reckless seizure and confiscation of
ships engaged in the West India trade caused bitter
resentment and appeals for redress.

This ominous opening of the new policy was
followed by other measures which speedily united
the colonies in common opposition. In April, 1763,
Grenville superseded Bute as head of the cabinet.
On September 23, in pursuance of a minute made
the day before at a meeting of the treasury board,
the commissioners of the stamp duties were directed
to transmit a draft of an act for imposing prop-
er stamp duties in America. Soon thereafter a
scheme for a new and efficient system of admiralty
courts was formed; while stringent orders were
issued for a more rigid enforcement of the acts of
trade.

Grenville next took up the scheme for raising a
revenue in the colonies. The burden of the na-
tional debt had been vastly increased by the war.

1 3 George III., chap, xxii., § 4.

104 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

Since 1754 the volume of taxes had grown by
more than £3,000,000. The minister was assured
that the colonies could well afford to give a part of
the money needed to maintain garrisons for their
own protection. To support a force of about ten
thousand men a revenue of £300,000 would be
required, and it was intended that the colonies
should bear one-third of this expense. At no time
during the struggle was it proposed that the colo-
nies should be taxed for the support of the home
government, or even for the full support of the
army in America.

Accordingly, on March 9, 1764, Grenville, in the
House of Commons, suggested that a revenue from
indirect taxes should at once be raised, and gave
notice of his purpose at the next session to bring in
a bill for the levying of stamp duties in the colonies.
Declaratory resolves to this effect were agreed upon
in committee, and the next day formally accept-
ed by the House.1 April 5 the "sugar act" re-
ceived the royal approval, and with it the Revo-
lutionary struggle may be regarded as actually
beginning.

King George III. was much pleased with the
new policy. On proroguing Parliament, April 19,
he referred with approval to " the wise regulations
which had been established to augment the public
revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant
possessions of the crown, and to encourage and

1 Commons Journal, XXIX., 933, 935.

1764] FIRST REVENUE ACT

secure their commerce with Great Britain." What
a "commentary on this sentence," exclaims Froth-
ingham, "were the events that occurred eleven
years later, on the anniversary of the delivery of
this speech."1

The preamble of the statute of 1764 2 declares
that the duties authorized are given and granted to
the king because "it is just and necessary, that a
revenue be raised in" his American dominions "for
defraying the expenses of defending, protecting,
and securing the same." The act of 1733 is con-
firmed and extended. The duty laid by it on sugar
is raised, while that on molasses is lowered. Heavy
duties are also levied on various foreign products,
England now being made the staple for Asiatic as
well as European goods. The drawbacks on re-
exportation are diminished, to the advantage of the
English exchequer. The colonies are absolutely
forbidden to import rum or spirits from foreign
plantations, or to trade with the French islands of
St. Pierre or Miquelon. New and stringent reg-
ulations for the enforcement of the acts of trade are
prescribed. The penalties for breach of the trade
laws at the option of the informer or prosecutor may
be recovered either in any court of record in the
colony where the offence is committed or in any
court of admiralty in America. The defendant is
thus denied the right of trial by jury, and may be

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 164.
1 4 George III., chap. xv.

106 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

compelled to go five hundred leagues to defend
himself before a strange tribunal. Though he him-
self is required to give ample security for costs, in
case the suit goes against him, yet, should he chance
to win, he is not entitled to any costs if the judge
certifies that there was probable ground of action;
nor is the person making the seizure liable to
prosecution therefor.1

The orders for the enforcement of the molasses act
with the report that it was to be renewed were
received in America with the "strongest appre-
hensions."2 They "caused a greater alarm in this
country," wrote Governor Bernard in January,
1764, "than the capture of Fort William Henry did
in 1757." 3 The law of 1733 was enacted, not for
the benefit of the English merchant, but in the
interest of the British sugar islands, at the expense
of the colonies. It laid a prohibitory duty on the
importation into the colonies of all foreign sugar
and molasses; and so, if enforced, would have de-
stroyed the best trade of the northern provinces.
In the foreign West Indies and the Spanish main
the staple products of the northern colonies found
a ready market. Fish, lumber, grain, and pro-
visions were exchanged for sugar, molasses, and
money. The molasses was used for the manufact-
ure of rum, of which in 1731 New England made

1 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 18, et seq.

2 Minot, Hist, of Mass., II., 140; Adams, Works, X., 345.
• Bernard, Select Letters, 9.

1763] FIRST REVENUE ACT 107

one million two hundred and sixty thousand gal-
lons. 1

Only through the island trade could the money
be obtained for the purchase of English goods,
since as in part a result of the restrictive system the
balance of trade was always against the colonies.
On the average about £1,000,000 sterling were
needed each year to make good the unfavorable
balance with Great Britain. According to Frank-
lin, Pennsylvania imported from England goods to
the value of £500,000 and in return exported but
£40,000, the balance being largely made up with
the West Indies.2 Indeed, this trade was absolutely
essential to the progress and prosperity of New
England. It was so admitted by Bernard in 1763
and by Pownall the next year. Without it, said
Defoe, in 1741, "these colonies would perish. "
Ten years earlier Gee was of the same opinion,
referring particularly to the export of provisions.3
In 1763 fifteen thousand hogsheads of French and
Spanish molasses were brought into Massachusetts
alone.4 After the war the trade with the foreign
islands had rapidly revived. This traffic would
now suddenly be cut off.

1 Cf . Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 19-21; Macpherson, An-
nals. III., 176; Anderson, Hist, and Chron. Deduction, III., 438.

2 Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), III., 413. Cf. Macpherson,
Annals, III., 175; Beer, Commercial Policy , 107.

3 Bernard, Select Letters, 6, it; Pownall, Administration
(ed. of 1765), 5; Defoe, A Plan for the English Commerce (ed.
of 1741), 356; Gee, Trade and Navigation (ed. of 1731), 72.

* Bernard, Select Letters, 10.

108 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

Very instructive are the arguments which Mau-
duit, the agent of Massachusetts in England, was
directed by the general court to present against the
sugar act. " The business of the fishery, which, it
was alleged, would be broken up by the act, was
at this time estimated in Massachusetts at £164,000
sterling per annum; the vessels employed in it,
which would be nearly useless, at £100,000; the
provisions used in it, the casks for packing fish, and
other articles, at £22,700 and upwards: to all
wmich there was to be added the loss of the ad-
vantage of sending lumber, horses, provisions, and
other commodities to the foreign plantations as
cargoes, the vessels employed to carry fish to Spain
and Portugal, the dismissing of 5,000 seamen from
their employment, the effects of the annihilation of
the fishery upon the trade of the Province and of
the mother - country in general, and its accumu-
lative evils by increasing the rival fisheries of
France."

A forcible argument turned upon the means of
1 ' remittances to England for goods imported into
the Province, which had been made in specie to
the amount of £150,000 sterling, besides £90,000
in treasurer's bills for the reimbursement money,
within the last eighteen months. The sources for
obtaining this money were through foreign coun-
tries by the means of the fishery; and would be cut
off with the trade to their plantations." The agent
was also instructed to protest against the naviga-

1763] FIRST REVENUE ACT

tion act of 1663, requiring European goods to be
shipped through England. The " expense of carry-
ing some articles received for fish in Spain and
Portugal to London, to enter them in the custom-
house there, would be so great as to exceed the
amount of the cost, and many times the value of
the duty also ; and fruit so necessary for the health
and comfort of the inhabitants would be lost from
the length of voyage." 1

The first result of the new policy was to organize
public opinion throughout the colonies. A senti-
ment of union was fostered and forms and modes
of concerted action were developed. For a year
memorials, petitions, state papers, protests, pam-
phlets, and public meetings were the order of the
day. The sugar act and the menace of a future
stamp tax were before the country at the same time ;
but it is very significant that the first movement in
America was against the sugar act. Even before
its passage the measures of 1763 for the execution
of the commercial code had aroused hostile dis-
cussion. Rhode Island prepared a remonstrance
to the lords of trade, to be presented by her agent
"if any three of the agents of the other colonies
would unite with him in the same." 2 "To promote
a union or a coalition of all their councils" against
the renewal of the molasses act, committees of

1 Minot, Hist, of Mass., II., 146-148, 150. Cf. the facts collected
by Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New Eng., II., 745-768.
3 In the Boston Evening Post, November 21, 28, 1763.

VOL. VIII. — ©

no PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

merchants were formed in various towns, and these
corresponded with each other.1

The earliest action against the new sugar law by
a political body was taken at the Boston town-meet-
ing on May 24, 1764. It was supposed that the law
was already enacted although as yet only its passage
by the Commons had been reported.2 A committee
of five was then appointed to prepare instructions
for the town's newly chosen representatives in the
assembly of the province. The instructions were
drafted and presented by Samuel Adams, a gradu-
ate of Harvard, who even thus early comes forward
in the great role he was to take in the Revolution as
the organizer of public opinion. The representatives
are enjoined to use their "influence in maintaining
the invaluable rights and privileges of the province " ;
and to " preserve that independence in the house of
representatives, which characterizes a free people."
" Our trade," they add, " has for a long time laboured
under great discouragements; and it is with the
deepest concern that we see such further difficulties
coming upon it, as will reduce it to the lowest ebb,
if not totally obstruct and ruin it." The assembly
is rebuked for not taking earlier notice of the "in-
tentions of the ministry, to burden us with new
taxes," referring to the agent's report that the
molasses act was to be renewed.-3

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 162, 163.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay. III., 106, 107.
8 Ibid., III., 104, 105.

1764] FIRST REVENUE ACT

in

The Bostonians enlarged on the nature of im-
perial trade. If "our trade is to be curtailed in its
most profitable branches, and burdens beyond all
possible bearing laid upon that which is suffered
to remain, we shall be so far from being able to take
off the manufactures of Great Britain, that it will be
scarce possible for us to earn our bread." Further-
more, "if our trade may be taxed, why not our
lands? Why not the produce of our lands, and
every thing we possess or make use of? This we
apprehend annihilates our charter right to govern
and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privi-
leges, which as we have never forfeited them, we
hold in common with our fellow-subjects who are
natives of Britain : If taxes are laid upon us in any
shape without our having a legal representation
where they are laid, are we not reduced from the
character of free subjects to the miserable state of
tributary slaves ? ... As his majesty's other northern
American colonies are embarked with us in this
most important bottom, we farther desire you to
use your endeavours, that their weight may be added
to that of this province : that by the united applica-
tion of all who are aggrieved, all may happily obtain
redress." 1

Though this initial document of the Revolution
deals with the restrictions on trade, it deftly in-
cludes three principles of immense moment in the

1 Otis, Rights of the British Colonies (London ed.), App., 100-
105.

ii2 PRELIMINARIES OP REVOLUTION [1764

approaching struggle. (1) It asserts the doctrine of
"no taxation without representation"; and at the
same time scorns the attempted distinction between
internal and external taxation. (2) The full rights
of Britons are claimed. (3) The united protest of
all the colonies is suggested.

The general court of Massachusetts met on May
30. A committee was appointed by the house
of representatives to consider the instructions of
the Boston meeting, and the letter from Mauduit
received early in the session announcing the final
enactment of the revenue law.1 This committee
submitted a "memorial" drafted by Otis, stating
the rights of the colonies. This famous argument
contains a fourth revolutionary principle, in the
hope expressed that " it will not be considered a new
doctrine that even the authority of the parliament
of Great Britain is circumscribed by certain bounds,
which if exceeded, their acts become those of mere
power without right, and consequently void"; for
"it is contrary to reason that the supreme power
should have right to alter the constitution. This
would imply that those who are intrusted with
sovereignty by the people have a right to do as
they please."

The memorial, like the instructions, deals almost
wholly with the trade problem. "The fishery is
the centre of motion, upon which the wheel of all
the British commerce in America turns." It "is

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 108.

1764] FIRST REVENUE ACT 113

certain that without the fishery seven-eighths of
this commerce would cease." If "it can be demon-
strated that the sugar and molasses trade from the
northern colonies to the foreign plantations is upon
the whole a loss to the community, by which term
is here meant the three kingdoms and the British
dominions taken collectively, then, and not till then,
should the trade be prohibited." Such is "the
extent of this continent, and the increase of its in-
habitants, that if every inch of the British sugar
islands was as well cultivated as any part of Jamaica
or Barbadoes, they would not now be able to supply
Great Britain" and her American colonies.1

An elaborate letter to the agent, also written by
Otis, was reported. Mauduit is sharply rebuked for
his concessions to the ministerial policy; and he is
instructed to urge the repeal of the sugar act and to
protest against the proposed stamp duties. "The
silence of the province," he is told, "should have
been imputed to any cause, even to despair, rather
than be construed into a tacit cession of their rights,
or an acknowledgment of a right in the Parliament
of Great Britain to impose duties and taxes upon a
people, who are not represented in the house of
commons." They protest against the "burden-
some scheme" of "obliging the colonies to maintain
an army " as unconstitutional. To prove that it was
unjust they refer to their services, particularly in the

1 Otis, Rights of the British Colonies (London ed.), App. 106-
120.

ii4 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

recent war, and to the debt which the province is
still bearing.1 This letter and the memorial were
sent to the agent in London. On June 13 a com-
mittee of correspondence, with Otis at the head,
was authorized to acquaint the other governments
with the action of the house and to " desire the
several assemblies on this continent to join with them
in the same measure."2 Accordingly, twelve days
later, a circular letter was sent to all the colonies
asking their "united assistance."

In these proceedings the Massachusetts house
of representatives had acted separately from the
council, apparently the first instance of their so
doing in any general question relating to the whole
province. Such an irregular course seemed un-
wise to the more cautious party. On their petition,
therefore, the governor called the general court to
meet in special session on October 18.3 In reply to
the governor's speech the council and house joined
in a forcible argument against the act of 1764, with
a mere incidental reference to the proposed stamp
tax. A petition to the House of Commons (Novem-
ber 3), drafted by Hutchinson, was also agreed
upon.4 It contained a weak protest against laying

1 Journal of the [Mass.] House, 1764, pp. 72-77. Cf. Bradford,
Mass. State Papers, 25-28.

2 Journal of the [Mass.] House, 1764, p. 77; reappointed on
November 3 by the general court, ibid., 137.

3 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., no, 112; Journal of
the [Mass.] House, 1764, p. 93.

* Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 18-23.

1764] FIRST REVENUE ACT 115

stamp duties, but did not claim exemption from
parliamentary taxation as a right. Its real weight
bears on the injustice of the sugar act. Further-
more, in their letter to Mauduit, transmitting the
petition, they distinctly say " that the late act of
parliament" imposing additional duties "affects this
colony more than any other."1

From the facts already presented it seems very
clear that for at least seven months after the declara-
tory resolves the people of Massachusetts were far
more alarmed by the enforcement of the sugar act
than they were by the menace of a stamp tax.
The other colonies, too, as the next chapter will dis-
close, were quite alive to the supreme importance
of this first internal revenue law. An examination
of the pamphlet literature for the same period leads
to the like result. In July appeared James Otis's
Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved.
This is the calmest and most carefully prepared of
Otis's political writings. It is a clear and temper-
ate exposition of natural rights and constitutional
principles as equally concerning all members of the
British nation. He argues that colonists have lost
none of their privileges as men and Englishmen
by leaving the old home. "If I were to define
the modern colonists, I should say, they are the
noble discoverers and settlers of a new world;
from whence, as from an endless source, wealth, and
plenty, the means of power, grandeur, and glory,

1 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 24, 25.

n6 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

in a degree unknown to the hungry chiefs of former
ages, have been pouring into Europe for three
hundred years.' * A colony "is a settlement of
subjects in a territory disjointed or remote from
the mother country, and may be made by private
adventurers or the public; but in both cases the
colonists are entitled to as ample rights, liberties,
and privileges as the subjects of the mother coun-
try are, and in some respects to more."

Otis, however, freely admits the legislative su-
premacy of Parliament. All of the colonies "are
subject to, and dependent upon Great Britain" ; and
"therefore as over subordinate governments" Par-
liament "has an undoubted power and lawful au-
thority, to make acts for the general good, that, by
naming them, shall and ought to be equally binding
as upon the subjects of Great Britain within the
realm." The colonists "should not only be con-
tinued in the enjoyment of subordinate legislation,
but be also represented in some proportion to their
number and estates in the grand legislation of the
nation." Without such representation taxation is
unconstitutional. "Is there the least difference, as
to the consent of the colonists, whether taxes and
impositions are laid on their trade, and other prop-
erty, by the crown alone, or by the parliament?"
If Parliament "have an equitable right to tax our
trade, it is indisputable that they have as good an one
to tax the lands " ; for " there is no foundation for the
distinction some make in England between an

1764] FIRST REVENUE ACT 117

internal and an external tax on the colonies." 1 To
have the whole tax for a standing army in America
" levied and collected without our consent is extraor-
dinary.' ' That privilege "is allowed even to tribu-
taries, and those laid under military contribution."

Yet there is no thought of independence in
Otis's argument. Were the colonists "inclined to
it, they know the blood and the treasure it would
cost." Could they have the choice between inde-
pendency and subjection to Great Britain, "upon
any terms above absolute slavery, I am convinced
that they would accept the latter." They "will
never prove undutiful, till driven to it, as the last
fatal resort against ministerial oppression, which
will make the wisest mad, and the weakest strong." 2

About two months after the appearance of Otis's
tract, Oxenbridge Thacher published his Senti-
ments of a British American. This is a loyal, con-
ciliatory, but firm protest against the new ministerial
policy. It is devoted almost wholly to analyzing
the act of 1764, showing that its provisions are
unjust to the colonists and dangerous to British
subjects everywhere. The effect of the act will be
to deprive England of her best customer; for the
colonists will be compelled either to manufacture
their goods or do without. About the same time
that the pamphlets of Otis and Thacher were
issuing from the Boston press, two essays were

1 Otis, Rights of the British Colonies, 37, 53, 57, 63, 99.
*Ibid., 65, 77.

n8 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

anonymously published in the middle colonies.
They are written from the stand-point of the Amer-
ican merchant, and each deals with the trade
problem in a broad, tolerant, and enlightening
spirit, showing that the welfare of the entire British
people would be served better by increasing rather
than restricting the liberty of commerce.1

According to Moses Coit Tyler, it is very curious
that these writings, though published long after the
announcement of the proposed Stamp Act, make no
reference to that measure. In his view the American
"people, bewildered in the thicket of passing events,
did not at first perceive their true relations and
proportions. But, at about the time of the appear-
ance of Thacher's pamphlet, that is, in the early
autumn of 1764, the appalling significance of the
notice of the stamp act began to dawn upon them ;
and then, almost at once, the centre of gravity shifted
from the immediate past to the immediate future, —
from the measure that had become a law in the
preceding March2 to the measure that might be-
come a law in the following March." 3

In several ways this statement is misleading.
The American people were by no means " bewildered "
by the swift development of the ministerial policy.
On the contrary, they very clearly saw the vast

1 An Essay on the Trade of the Northern Colonies, etc.; Some
Thoughts on the Method of Improving and Securing the Ad-
vantages, etc. 2 A slip for "April "

3 Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 60, 6?.

1764]

FIRST REVENUE ACT

119

relative importance of the act of 1764. Its signifi-
cance was not less " appalling" than that of the
proposed stamp tax. It was even more alarming,
so far at least as the northern provinces were con-
cerned. The tax levied by it was the same in
principle as the stamp duties; while the swift
destruction of trade which it threatened meant an
immediate sacrifice more harmful than the stamp
tax could possibly cause for years to come. Nor
was there such a sudden change in sentiment as
here represented. Feeling simply became more in-
tense because the grievance was growing. The
effect of the stamp tax was cumulative. In the
struggle against it, presently to be considered, the
sugar act was not forgotten. It lies at the bottom
of the revolutionary contest.

This is so not merely because it taxed the Amer-
ican people without their consent, but chiefly be-
cause it confirmed the molasses act which was al-
ready being executed by new and unconstitutional
devices. In the words of a writer who rejected the
popular idea that the "Revolution began in the
stamp act," "neither the duties laid in 1764 nor the
collection of the taxes anticipated from the stamp
act of 1765 would have produced a tithe of the
evil that would have followed" from the enforce-
ment of the molasses act.- "They went to war

Chamberlain, "The Revolution Impending," in Winsor,
Narr. and Crit. Hist., VI., 24-26, 63. Cf. the similar view of
Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New Eng., II., 753.

120 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [*764

against a preamble. They fought seven years
against a declaration."1 This epigram of Webster,
like most epigrams, is only true in part. The
revolutionary debate did, indeed, turn mainly on
constitutional principles ; but below the question of
constitutional right lay the economic grievance as a
stern reality.

1 Webster, Works, IV., 109.

CHAPTER VII

THE MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT

(1764-1765)

HE renewal of the molasses act and the en-

1 forcement of the commercial code were pecul-
iarly the work of Grenville. For the Stamp Act, too,
he must be held responsible. Yet the policy of
American taxation was not original with him. It
was in a sense " devolved" upon him. Its elements
may be found in the administrative records of the
preceding thirty-five years. Save for the form of
the molasses act, Parliament had steadily observed
the distinction between external and internal taxes.
Duties were levied solely for the regulation of trade,
although some revenue might actually accrue.

Taxation of the colonies had already been thought
of: even a stamp duty was suggested in 17281 and
again in 1739 2 by Sir William Keith, governor of
Pennsylvania; and a " scheim" for a similar tax was
submitted to Governor Clinton by Lieutenant-

1 Keith, A Short Discourse, in Byrd^ Dividing Line, II.,
215-227.

2 Lecky, England, III., 343; Adams, Works, X., 74, 80.

121

122 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1751

Governor Clarke of New York, in 1744.1 In 1754
and in 1756 2 Shirley of Massachusetts advised
the levy of a common war fund on America. His
project was ably resisted by Franklin,3 and the
ministry declined to accept it; as it did also the
similar counsel of Governor Hardy of New York
and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia.

The actual initiative in the new revenue policy
was taken by Charles Townshend, first lord of trade
in the Bute cabinet. Like Grenville, he prided
himself on having an accurate knowledge of the
colonies; and with Halifax, in 1 751-1753, he had
urged a firmer exercise of the prerogative in secur-
ing provincial control. He now (1763) favored a
policy to be enforced by acts of Parliament. The
colonial governments were to be remodelled accord-
ing to a uniform plan ; the acts of trade enforced ;
a revenue raised in America, to be disbursed under
the king's sign manual without appropriation by
Parliament; and this revenue used for the salaries
of the royal officers and the maintenance of a
military establishment in the colonies.

The carrying out of Townshend's scheme was
prevented by the dissolution of the Bute ministry in
April, 1763. In part his policy was taken up and
developed by Grenville, as already seen; but he
positively rejected its harsher features. He de-

1 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VI., 268, 269.

2 Knox, Controversy, 196-197; Lecky, England, III., 341.

3 Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), II., 376-383; Knox, Con-
troversy, 194.

1763] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 123

clined to interfere with the colonial charters or to
allow the salaries of the royal officers in the colonies
to be paid from England. " Nor would he listen to
the suggestion that the revenue to be raised in
America should constitute a fund to be disposed of
under the sign manual of the king; he insisted that
it should be paid into the receipt of the exchequer
to be regularly appropriated by parliament." 1

To a man of Grenville's narrow statesmanship a
revenue tax laid by Parliament on America seemed
reasonable. That it would be strictly legal ap-
peared clear, unless it was unlawful for Parliament
in any case to legislate for the colonies while they
were unrepresented ; and even the colonies had not
yet made that claim. Moreover, he urged, there
was pressing need of money in consequence of the
war.2 Equally reasonable to him appeared the
design to place a small military force in America and
to tax the colonists for its support. There seems
to be no ground to question the justice of Lecky's
view that the "primary object" of the government
was to defend the provinces and to guard the wider
imperial interests; although he admits that 4 'it is
possible, and indeed very probable, that a desire to
strengthen the feeble executive, and to prevent the
systematic violation of the revenue laws, was a
motive with those who recommended the establish-
ment of an army in America."

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 68.

2 Almon, Biographical Anecdotes, II., 88.

I24 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

With the new conquests in India and America
the increasing expense of maintaining the empire
bore more heavily upon the eight million English-
men at home, "weighed down with debt and with
taxation, and with a strong traditional hostility to
standing armies." Furthermore, in both India and
Ireland the precedent of dividing the military bur-
den with the dependencies of the crown had already
been set. At that moment, though impoverished
and groaning under almost intolerable ecclesiastical
and political oppression, Ireland was supporting a
force of twelve thousand men.1 Yet it must be con-
fessed that the example of these " conquered'' coun-
tries could hardly afford a persuasive argument
against the traditional dread of a standing army
which in the colonies was even more acute than
in England.

Nevertheless, Grenville proposed the stamp tax
with some reluctance. He was urged to it by men
at home like Welbore Ellis and the Marquis of
Halifax, as also by Pownall, Bernard, and other
American officials.2 Even Franklin — who it is
much to be feared more than once resorted to special
pleading — at this time professed to view with com-
placency a tax for the support of an army in the
colonies.3 Therefore Grenville decided to give a

1 Lecky, England, III., 339.

3 Pownall, Administration (ed. of 1765), 89, et seq.; Bernard,
" Principles of Law and Polity," in his Select Letters, App., 75,
et seq. 3 Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), III., 299.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 125

year's notice of the proposed act, as if to invite a
constitutional discussion ; or, as his critics said, to
"allow time for mooting the question of right and
preparing in the colonies an opposition to the law."
To the provincial agents at the close of the session he
said he had "proposed the resolution in the terms
the parliament has adopted, from a real regard and
tenderness for the subjects in the colonies." If
"they thought any other mode of taxation more
convenient to them, and made any proposition
which should carry the appearance of equal ef-
ficiency with the stamp duty, he would give it all
due consideration." 1 But it seems clear that he
meant the tax, whatever its form, should be levied
by Parliament.2

The reception in America of the notice of the
Stamp Act should have been ample warning to the
ministry of the dangerous course on which it was
entering. The effect in Massachusetts has already
been considered.3 Even the timid Hutchinson, in a
letter to the secretary of the chancellor of the ex-
chequer, forcibly presented the case of the people.
In most of the colonies the proposed stamp tax and
the new revenue law were discussed. Memorials,
petitions, and addresses were sent to England. The
assembly of Connecticut desired the governor,
Thomas Fitch, to "prepare an humble and earnest

1 Knox, The Claim of the Colonies (London, 1765), 32.

2 Cf. Knox, Controversy, 199, with Burke, Speech on American
Taxation (ed. of 1775), 53—55- 3 Chap, vi., above.

VOL. VIII. — IO

126 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

address" to Parliament against the "bill for a stamp
duty, or any other bill for an internal tax on the
colony"; and this address with the "Book of
Reasons " was ordered sent to the agent in London.1
The book referred to was the Reasons Why the
British Colonies in America Should not be Charged
with Internal Taxes by Authority of Parliament,
written by the governor himself as member of a
committee. It admits that Parliament has "a
general authority, a supreme jurisdiction over all
his majesty's subjects," and that this jurisdiction
properly extends to duties for the regulation of
trade. But since the people neither have nor can
have representation in Parliament, the charging
of stamp duties or other internal taxes "would be
such an infringement of the rights, privileges, and
authorities of the colonies, that it might be humbly
and firmly trusted, and even relied upon, that the
supreme guardians of the liberties of the subject
would not suffer the same to be done."2

The attitude of Pennsylvania was much bolder.
At this moment the selfish policy of the proprietors
was arousing earnest opposition. Franklin and
Galloway, with the great body of the Quakers,
desired that the province should be made a royal
government, while Dickinson and others dreaded
the change lest their civil liberties should be still

1 Conn. Col. Records, XII., 299.

2 Fitch, Reasons Why, etc; also in Conn. Col. Records, XII.,
651-671.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 127

more imperilled.1 Both parties, however, were
united against the schemes of Grenville. The as-
sembly showed a willingness to grant requisitions in
the customary way; but they would have nothing
to do with the "financier." The king always ac-
companied his request with "good words"; but
Grenville, "instead of a decent demand, sent them
a menace, that they should certainly be taxed, and
only left them the choice of the manner." 2 Parlia-
ment "had really no right at all to tax them."
Therefore, they resolved that as "they always had,
so they always should think it their duty to grant
aid to the crown, according to their abilities, when-
ever required of them in the usual constitutional
manner." 3

This sentiment is repeated in the instructions to
Richard Jackson, the colony's agent. "Taxes as-
sessed in any other manner, where the people are not
represented, and by persons not acquainted with
the colonies, would be unequal, oppressive, and
unjust, and what we trust a British parliament will
never think to be right." 4 The agent is required to
remonstrate against the proposed stamp tax, and to
endeavor to secure a repeal or modification of the
sugar act. Indeed, the two sets of instructions sent
to him deal largely with the evil effects of the acts

1 Pa., Votes of the House of Rep., V., 345, 346, 379, 380; also
Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), III., 286, et seq.

2 Franklin to Alexander, in Works (Bigelow's ed.) , VI., 143-145.

3 Pa., Votes of the House of Rep. (Bigelow's ed.), V., 383.
'Ibid., 363, 364, 377, 378.

128 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

of trade, and in particular with those caused by the
prohibition of the European trade in lumber and
iron. At this time Franklin was sent to England
to act with Jackson as colonial agent, and letters
from the committees of correspondence brought en-
couraging word of the resistance of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island.1

North Carolina protested strongly against the
sugar act. October 31, 1765, in addressing Gov-
ernor Dobbs, the assembly said: "We observe our
commerce circumscribed in its most beneficial
branches, diverted from its natural channel, and
burthened with new taxes and impositions laid on
us without our privity or consent and against what
we esteem our inherent right and exclusive privilege
of imposing our own taxes."2 The governor him-
self regarded the acts of trade as harmful to the
colony.3

In some cases the governors took a course not at
all likely to soothe the popular resentment. Thus
the assembly of South Carolina was prorogued
before any statement of its wishes was agreed
upon, but not before a committee with power to
act had been appointed. In the instructions to
Charles Garth, the colony's agent, the committee
complain of the severity of the acts of trade, and
declare that the stamp tax would be inconsistent

1 Pa., Votes of the House of Rep., V., 355, 356, 383 (September

376, 383 (October). 2 N. C. Col. Records, VI., 1261.

3 Ibid., VI., 1020-1023, especially 102 5-1035.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 129

"with that inherent right of every British subject,
not to be taxed but by his own consent, or that of his
representatives. For, though we shall submit most
dutifully at all times to acts of parliament, yet, we
think it incumbent on us humbly to remonstrate
against such as appear oppressive, hoping that when
that august body come to consider this matter they
will view it in a more favorable light, and not
deprive us of our birthright, and thereby reduce
us to the condition of vassals and tributaries." 1
In like spirit, through repeated prorogations, the
governor of Maryland prevented the assembly from
coming together before the Stamp Act was passed;
yet the hostile public opinion made itself known
through the press.2

The course taken by Virginia was firm and
dignified. A committee appointed by the council
and burgesses 3 on November 1 4 prepared an ad-
dress to the king, a memorial to the Lords, and a
remonstrance to the House of Commons. The
colonists, it is claimed in the address, have "every
right and privilege" which their ancestors had in
the mother-country. Exemption from taxes with-
out consent is a "fundamental principle of the
British constitution"; for "property must become
too precarious for the genius of a free people, which

1 Gibbes, Doc. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 1-6.

2 Mereness, Maryland, II., 477; Scharf, Maryland, I., 524.

3 Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1764, p. 38; Wirt, Henry,
v4pp., note a.

130 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1764

can be taken away from them at the will of others,
who cannot know what taxes such people can bear,
or the easiest mode of raising them; and who are
not tinder that restraint, which is the greatest
security against a burthensome taxation, when the
representatives themselves must be affected by
every tax imposed."

Not less courageous was the response of New
York. That province, as already seen,1 had re-
cently suffered from the interference of the pre-
rogative with the independence of the courts; and
now Governor Colden was urging a project to allow
final appeal to the king in all cases tried before a
jury in the common law courts, even without a writ
of error.2 Early in March, 1764, a memorial of the
merchants against the renewal of the molasses act
came before the council ; 3 and in June, when the news
arrived that this was actually done, the people were
stirred to strong resentment. Men spoke in the
temper of the later non -importation resolves. " It
appears plainly," said Robert Livingston, "that
these duties are only the beginning of evils. The
stamp duty, they tell us, is deferred, till they see
whether the colonies will take the yoke upon them-
selves, and offer something else as certain. They
talk, too, of a land-tax, and to us the ministry

1 See chap, v., above.

7 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 681-685, 695, et seq.
3 Council Minutes, XXV., 512; Calendar of Council Minutes,
464.

1764] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 131

appears to have run mad."1 Even Colden ad-
mitted the folly of the molasses act.2

In October the New York assembly appointed a
committee of correspondence, and presented a strong
statement of grievances to the king and another
to the Lords. In the petition to the Commons —
which Colden describes as "indecent" — they de-
clare that "the thought of independency upon the
supreme power of the parliament we reject with the
utmost abhorrence. The authority of the parlia-
ment of Great Britain to model the trade of the
whole empire, so as to subserve the interest of her
own, we are ready to recognize in the most extensive
and positive terms; but the freedom to drive all
kinds of traffic, in subordination to and not incon-
sistent with the British trade, and an exemption
from all duties in such a course of commerce, is
humbly claimed by the colonies as the most essential
of all the rights to which they are entitled as colonists,
and connected in the common bond of liberty with
the free sons of Great Britain. For, since all im-
positions, whether they be internal taxes, or duties
paid for what we consume, equally diminish the
estates upon which they are charged, what avails it
to any people by which of them they are impover-
ished?" The loss of their rights, they suggest, is
likely to "shake the power of Great Britain."3

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 78.

2 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 612.

3 Bancroft, United Slates (ed. of 1885), III., 89.

132 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

The opposition in Rhode Island was led by-
Stephen Hopkins, who, like Fitch of Connecticut,
was governor by popular choice. In October the
committee of correspondence, of which he was
chairman, sent out a circular letter saying, "the
impositions already laid on the trade of these
colonies must have very fatal consequences. The
act in embryo for establishing stamp duties, if
effected, will further drain the people, and strongly
point out their servitude" ; it "will leave us nothing
to call our own." Therefore, it is hoped that some
method may "be hit upon for collecting the senti-
ments of each colony, and for uniting and forming
the substance of them all into one common defence
of the whole." 1 The assembly's petition to the
king, in November, professes alarm at the resolution
to impose a stamp tax ; declares that " the restraints
and burdens" laid on their trade by the late act are
such, if continued, as " must ruin" them ; and claims
the "essential privilege" of Englishmen of being
governed by laws made by their own consent, and
of parting with their property only "as it is called
for by the authority of such laws." 2 November 22,
by authority of the assembly, appeared at Provi-
dence a pamphlet by Stephen Hopkins, in which the
American case was admirably stated.3 It was re-

1 See the letter in Pa., Votes of the House of Rep., V., 376.
Cf.R. L Col. Records, VI., 403. 2 R'. I. Col. Records ,VI., 414-416.

3 Hopkins, The Rights of the Colonics Examined; reprinted by
Almon as The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly
Examined.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 133

printed in nearly every colony ; and both in America
and England its strong argument and conciliatory
tone must have made a powerful impression on
public opinion.1

In reply to Hopkins the case of the loyalists was
most skilfully presented by Martin Howard, a rep-
utable lawyer of Newport. He boldly attacked the
new doctrine of nullification at its vital point, deny-
ing "that the colonists have rights independent
of, and not controlled by, the authority of parlia-
ment." First, under their charters they have not
all the political rights of Englishmen at home. " I
fancy," he says, "when we speak or think of the
rights of freeborn Englishmen, we confound those
rights which are personal with those which are
political. . . . Our personal rights, comprehending
those of life, liberty, and estate, are secured to us by
the common law, which is every subject's birthright,
whether born in Great Britain, on the ocean, or in
the colonies; and it is in this sense we are said to
enjoy all the rights and privileges of Englishmen.
The political rights of the colonies, or the powers of
government communicated to them, are more limit-
ed; and their nature, quality, and extent depend
altogether upon the patent or charter which first
created and instituted them. As individuals, the
colonists participate of every blessing the English
constitution can give them; as corporations created

1 Foster, Stephen Hopkins, II., 57-59; Tyler, Lit. Hist, of
Am. Rev., I., 63-69.

i34 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

by the crown, they are confined within the primitive
views of their institution." Secondly, the colonists
are not exempt from taxation because they do not
send delegates to Parliament. They are virtually
represented. The members of the House of Com-
mons are "representatives of every British subject
wherever he be, and therefore, to every useful and
beneficial purpose, the interests of the colonists are
as well secured and managed by such a house, as
though they had a share in electing them." There-
fore, he concludes, the colonists may justly challenge
the justice or wisdom of the particular measures of
Parliament, but not its jurisdiction.1

While these and other writings in America were
called out by the notice of the Stamp Act, two notable
tracts issued from the London press. One, by the
famous wit, member of Parliament, and man of
letters, Soame Jenyns, assails in a jaunty though
effective manner the objections of the colonists to
being taxed by Parliament ; the other, by Grenville
himself, is perhaps the ablest defence of the minis-
terial policy produced during this stage of the con-
troversy. Like Jenyns,2 he bases the right of taxa-
tion on the alleged fact of "virtual representation,"
and he refers with satisfaction to the palliative
measures by which the late revenue act was accom-
panied. For the bounties on hemp and flax had

1 Howard, A Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax, 6, 8, 21.

2 Jenyns, The Objections to the Taxation of Our American
Colonies Briefly Considered (ed. of 1765), 4-9.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 135

been renewed ; the American whale - fishery en-
couraged by the repeal of the high discriminating
duties; and the rice of South Carolina and Georgia
admitted directly to the foreign plantations of
America as by earlier laws it might be carried to
European ports south of Cape Finisterre.1

The remonstrances of the colonies were of no
avail. Under the rule against receiving petitions
against a money bill their appeals were rejected
without a hearing.2 The lords of trade reported
to the king the action of the assemblies of Massa-
chusetts and New York as "indecent" and fitted to
disturb the "dependence" of the colonies.3 For
a moment, it is said, Grenville, like Adam Smith,
did, indeed, look with favor on the recommenda-
tion of Franklin 4 and the repeated suggestions of
Otis,5 that colonial representation should be ad-
mitted to Parliament ; but in both America and Eng-
land the idea was generally regarded as imprac-
ticable.

The passage of the Stamp Act attracted scarce any
notice in England. February 2, 1765, a final re-
monstrance of the colonial agents proved fruitless.

1 Grenville, The Regulations Lately Made, 47-56, 104, et seq.;
see his speech in 1766, in Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI.,
102.

2 Ibid., XVI., 35; Kimball, Correspondence of the Col. Gov-
ernors of R. I., II., 360.

3iV. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 678.
4 Smith, Wealth of Nations (ed. of 1887), II., 135, et seq.;
Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), II., 384-387.
6 Tudor, Otis, 185-200.

136 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

As a substitute Franklin could only urge the usual
method by royal requisition ; but Grenville silenced
him by asking how the apportionment was to be
made. Four days later the fifty-five resolutions
comprising the details of the proposed law were
submitted by Grenville to the House of Commons in
the committee of ways and means.1 On the 13th
the bill was introduced without debate; on the 27th
it was sent to the Lords ; and on March 22 it received
the royal sanction by commission, the king then
being insane. The debate was languid, being en-
livened only by Colonel Isaac Barre's eloquent reply
to Charles Townshend, in which he referred to the
colonists as "sons of liberty,"2 and by Conway's
defence of the right of petition.

During the progress of the bill there was but one
division, and then the minority did not amount to
"more than forty." It was passed in the Commons
by a vote of 205 to 49, and by the Lords without
"debate, division, or protest." 3 The arrogance
and blind indifference with which the sentiments
and petitions of the colonists were treated during
the enactment of this fatal measure place the re-
sponsibility for the American Revolution squarely
on the shoulders of the British government.

1 Commons Journal, XXX., 97-101.

* Cobbett - Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 38, 39, n. On the
question of the genuineness of this speech, see Adolphus, Hist,
of Eng., I., 167, and especially, McCrady, Hist, of S. C, 1719-

I776> 579. n. 2.

3 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 40-

«

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 137

The Stamp Act1 required that every broadside,
newspaper, or pamphlet; every bill, note, or bond;
every lease, license, insurance policy, ship's clear-
ance paper, or college diploma; every instrument
used in the conveyance of real or personal property ;
and all legal documents of every kind should be
written or printed on stamped vellum or paper, to
be sold by public officials appointed for the purpose.
In some cases the cost of business transactions
would thus be increased many fold. The penalties
imposed are cognizable, "at the election of the in-
former or prosecutor," in any court of record or
admiralty having jurisdiction in the colony where
the offence is committed. The revenue derived is
to be paid into his majesty's exchequer, and ex-
pended under direction of Parliament solely for the
purpose of " defending, protecting, and securing the
said colonies."

To lessen the opposition, Grenville informed the
agents that he did not think of sending stamp
officers from England, " but wished to have discreet
and respectable persons appointed from among the
inhabitants; and that he would be obliged to them
to point out to him such persons." 2 They all com-
plied with his request. Even Franklin named his
friend, John Hughes, as stamp distributer for Penn-
sylvania ; and through his influence Jared Ingersoll,
the agent of Connecticut, accepted the same office

1 5 George III., chap. xii. Cf. Mac Donald, Select Charters,
281-305. 2 Gordon, United States, I., 166.

138 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

for his colony. The duty "will fall particularly
hard on us lawyers and printers," said Franklin.
The next day after the act was passed he wrote
home to Charles Thompson, "we might as well have
hindered the sun's setting. . . . Since it is down, . . .
let us make as good a night of it as we can. We may
still light candles. Frugality and industry will go
a great way towards indemnifying us."1 Neither
Franklin nor any of his colleagues seems to have
doubted that the act would be quietly enforced.
In fact, Knox, agent of Georgia, wrote a pamphlet
in its defence.2

At the same time Grenville extended his palliative
measures. New bounties were offered on the im-
portation of timber from the plantations; the re-
strictions on the export of iron and lumber were
relaxed; and the rice of North Carolina was given
the same advantage as that of the two neighboring
provinces.3 In the effect on colonial sentiment these
favors were far more than offset by the provisions
of another unwise law of this session.4 By the
so-called "billeting act" British troops in America
might be quartered in barracks provided by the
colonies ; or when these did not suffice, in ale-houses,
inns, barns, and uninhabited houses; the owners

franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), X., 430.

2 Knox, The Claim of the Colonies, etc.

3 5 George III., chap, xlv., §§ 11, 19, 22, 23.

4 5 George III., chap, xxxiii.; MacDonald, Select Charters,
306-313.

1765] MENACE OF THE STAMP ACT 139

might be compelled to furnish them with food and
drink at a fixed rate; and the money needed for
the purpose was required to be levied " in such
manner as the public charges for the province are
raised."

CHAPTER VIII

AMERICA'S RESPONSE TO THE STAMP ACT

HE effect of the passage of the Stamp Act soon

1 revealed how fatally the ministry and even the
colonial agents had misjudged the temper of the
American people. The spontaneous formation of
parties, begun two years before,1 now made rapid
progress. The party of resistance, the patriots, were
called Whigs ; the party of submission, Hutchinson
says, as early as 1763 were branded as Tories.
The former, more numerous and aggressive, suc-
ceeded eventually in uniting all the provinces, from
New Hampshire to Georgia, in common opposition
to the new tax.

There was, however, a period of suspense. For
some time after it was known that the bill had be-
come a law the colonists paused as if weighing the
tremendous responsibility of defying the jurisdiction
of Parliament. To many of the leaders it seemed
inevitable that the act would be enforced. Five
weeks after news of its passage Hutchinson wrote to

(1765)

Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 103.

140

9

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 141

the ministry, "The stamp act is received among us
with as much decency as could be expected; it
leaves no room for evasion, and will execute itself." 1
April 27, Colden of New York assured Halifax that
his province remained in "perfect tranquillity," not-
withstanding "the efforts of a faction to raise dis-
content in the minds of the people."2 Governor
Sharpe of Maryland reported that the "warmth"
of those who had a "notion" that the charter ex-
empted them from such requisitions "would soon
abate," and that in spite of the violent outcries of
the lawyers the Stamp Act would be carried into
execution.3

Although the "assembly of Pennsylvania was in
session when tidings of the passage of the stamp
act reached Philadelphia," it adjourned without
taking "public notice of it." 4 Even Otis, who in
1764 had said "it is our duty to submit" to the
sugar act,5 now again declared it to be the "duty
of all humbly and silently to acquiesce in all the
decisions of the supreme legislature. Nine hundred
and ninety-nine in a thousand of the colonists will
never once entertain a thought but of submission
to our sovereign, and to the authority of parliament
in all possible contingencies. . . . They undoubtedly
have the right to levy internal taxes on the colo-

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., no.
9 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 710.
8 Browne, Sharpe Correspondence, III., 210.

4 Gordon, Pennsylvania, 433.

5 Otis, Rights of the British Colonies, 40.

^OL. VIII.— II

142 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

nies. ' ' 1 But appearances were deceptive : there was a
smouldering fire of popular resentment which might
at any time be stirred into a living flame.

The first organized resistance came from Virginia
under the lead of Patrick Henry. From the moment
of his victory in the "parson's cause " that young
lawyer was marked in the province as a rising man.
He was now rewarded with a place in the house of
burgesses, where, his biographer says, " he was
promptly to gain an ascendency that constituted
him, almost literally, the dictator of its proceedings,
so long as he chose to hold a place in it." 2 Early
in May, 1765, he was chosen to fill a vacancy in the
representation of Louisa county, of which he was not
then a resident. The old leaders of the assembly
were cautious and seemed inclined to yield.

It was not until four weeks after the opening of the
session that the first action regarding the stamp
tax was taken. On May 29 a motion was carried
"that the house resolve itself into a committee of
the whole, immediately to consider the steps neces-
sary to be taken in consequence of the resolutions of
the house of commons of Great Britain, relative to
the charging certain stamp duties in the colonies
and plantations of America." In the committee
Patrick Henry, who had taken his seat but nine
days before, stepped boldly forward to assume the

1 Otis, Brief Remarks on the Defence of the Halifax Libel;
Vindication of the British Colonies, 21, 26.
* Tyler, Henry, 55.

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS

revolutionary leadership, proposing a preamble and
seven resolutions, which he had written on a blank
leaf of an old copy of "Coke upon Littleton." 1 In
them he claimed for the colonists of Virginia all the
rights at any time enjoyed by the people of Great
Britain. Among these is the exclusive privilege
of taxing themselves, "the distinguishing charac-
teristic of British freedom, and without which the
ancient constitution cannot subsist."

A stormy debate ensued. The resolutions were
supported by the more democratic members of the
western counties, but strongly opposed by Bland,
Wythe, Nicholas, Pendleton, Peyton Randolph, and
all the old and aristocratic leaders, "whose influ-
ence in the house had, till then, been unbroken," 2
and whom the mover had just antagonized by his
exposure of a corrupt financial scheme which some
of them had favored.3 Henry was abused, ridiculed,
and threatened. According to Jefferson, who heard
the debate, the contest on the fifth resolution was
especially "bloody"; but "torrents of sublime elo-
quence from Mr. Henry, backed by the solid reason-
ing of Johnston, prevailed."4 This resolution de-
clares that every attempt to vest the power of tax-
ation in any "persons whatsoever, other than the
general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency

1 See the critical account of the versions of these resolutions
by Tyler, Henry, 61-67, notes/

2 Jefferson, Memorandum, in Hist. Mag., new series, II., 91.

3 Henry, Henry, I., 76-78; Tyler, Henry, 56, 57.

* Jefferson, Memorandum, in Hist. Mag., new series, II., 9?,

144 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

to destroy British as well as American freedom."
At this point, while " descanting on the tyranny"
of the Stamp Act, the orator startled the house with
a warning from history as with thrilling voice he
exclaimed, " Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus ;
Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the
Third " — here the speaker cried "Treason," and the
word was echoed from every part of the house, while
Henry "rising to a loftier attitude," and fixing his
eye on the chair, closed the sentence — " may profit
by their example. If this be treason make the most
of it."

Apparently the preamble and seven resolutions
were agreed to in the committee of the whole. On
May 30, after a warm contest in the house, the last
two resolutions with the preamble were rejected,
while the remaining five were adopted, but only
by a majority of one or two.1 The resolutions re-
jected boldly asserted that the inhabitants of the
colony "are not bound to yield obedience to any
law or ordinance" imposing taxation upon them
without their consent, and denounced as "an enemy
to his majesty's colony" any person who should
maintain that any body other than the colonial
assembly has the right or power to levy such taxes.
On the afternoon of that same day Henry, " clad in
a pair of leather breeches, his saddle-bags on his arm,
leading a lame horse, and chatting with Paul Carring-

1 According to Patrick Henry's own statement, Henry,
Henry, I., 81.

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 145

ton," was seen passing along the street on his way-
home.1 The next morning, their dread antagonist
being no longer at hand, the conservative members
got together and expunged the fifth resolution from
the record.

Meantime, in manuscript copy, as the supposed
action of the assembly, the entire series of resolves
agreed to in committee — except the third, omitted
by error — was on its way to Philadelphia and New
York. Borne onward to New England, they were
published and widely circulated in the newspapers,
and had a powerful influence in producing the ex-
citement and violence which followed. For beyond
question the Virginia resolves mark an important
crisis in the impending revolution.2

While Virginia was thus raising the standard of
resistance Massachusetts pointed the way to union.
On May 29 — the very day when Patrick Henry read
his resolves — the general court began its session.
The speech of Governor Bernard was most infe-
licitous in tone. Contrary to custom the assembly
made no reply, but turned at once to the great
question of the hour. June 6, James Otis sug-
gested that a meeting of "committees" from the
assemblies should be called to consider the danger
which menaced the country from the stamp tax.3
His suggestion was unanimously adopted; but the
conservatives, in the hope of controlling the move-

1 Grigsby, Virginia Convention of 1776, 150.

2 Henry, Henry, I., 94-106. 3 Warren, Am. Rev., I., 31.

146 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

ment, were strong enough to secure the election of
two of their number to serve with Otis as delegates
of the house. These were Oliver Partridge and
Timothy Ruggles, whom Bernard described as " fast
friends of government, — prudent and discreet men
who would never consent to any improper applica-
tion to the government of Great Britain."1 On
June 8 was adopted a circular letter inviting all the
colonies to send delegates to a congress to be held
in New York on the first Tuesday in October, to
consider the difficulties to which the colonies "are
and must be reduced by the operation of the acts
of parliament for levying duties and taxes" upon
them, to prepare a loyal and humble " representation
of their condition" to the king and Parliament, and
to "implore relief." 2

For several weeks the response to the Massa-
chusetts letter was not encouraging. The assembly
of New Hampshire seemed to favor the plan of a
congress but failed to appoint delegates.3 June 20,
the last day of its session, the assembly of New
Jersey received the circular letter. Robert Ogden,
the speaker, was opposed to the project; and the
house, while " not without a just sensibility respect-
ing the late acts of parliament affecting the northern

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 177; Journal of the [Mass.]
House, 1765, pp. 108, 110.

2 The letter is in the Boston Evening Post, August 26, 1765;
also Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 36; and Journal of the
[Mass.] House, 1765, p. 109.

*N. H. Provincial Papers, VII., 81.

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 147

colonies," and wishing "such other colonies as
think proper to be active every success they can
loyally and reasonably desire," unanimously de-
clined "to unite on the present occasion." 1

Gradually the influence of the Virginia resolves
made itself felt. The tide of popular excitement
began to rise. First to accept the invitation was
South Carolina. August 2, under the leadership of
Christopher Gadsden, the assembly appointed dele-
gates to the congress, and in its resolutions2 the
Stamp Act and the acts extending the jurisdiction
of the courts of admiralty were held to have " a mani-
fest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties
of this province." Next, on August 13, the town
of Providence instructed its representatives in the
Rhode Island assembly to use their influence in
favor of sending delegates to New York, and to
"procure the passage of a series of resolves, in which
were incorporated those adopted by Virginia."3
Accordingly, in September, the assembly appointed
delegates to the congress, and adopted a declaration
of rights embracing the substance of the Virginia
resolutions, and directing all officers of the colony
"to proceed in the execution of their respective
offices in the same manner as usual," promising to
indemnify and save them harmless.4 During the

tN. J. Archives, IX., 496.

2 Drayton, Mem. of Am. Rev., I., 41; McCrady, Hist, of S. C.f
1719-1776, 561-563;

3 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 181.

4 R. I. Col. Records^ VI., 449-452.

148 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

same month deputies were chosen by the assemblies
of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland. In
each case resolves similar in character to those of
Virginia were agreed upon.1

Thus in six cases delegates to the congress were
chosen by the assemblies. In addition New York
sent its committee of correspondence, while Dela-
ware and New Jersey were each represented by
delegates elected by members of the assemblies
acting informally.2 Virginia, Georgia, and North
Carolina sent no delegates, their governors refusing
to call the assemblies. New Hampshire, too, was
unrepresented. Yet all these colonies were in sym-
pathy with the congress, and from both Georgia and
New Hampshire came assurance of accepting its
action.3

Meantime, throughout the country intense excite-
ment prevailed. From town-meetings, county as-
semblies, and provincial legislatures came remon-
strances and resolves. Through pamphlets and
newspapers a fierce contest was waged. It soon
became quite clear that the Stamp Act would be
absolutely nullified. As a form of passive resistance

1 Pa., Votes of the House of Rep., V., 419, 420, 426; Conn. Col.
Records, XII., 410, 421-425. Cf. Mereness, Maryland as a Prop
Province, 478-482; Scharf, Maryland, I., 535-539.

2 Journal of the Congress, in Niles, Principles and Acts, 159-
161; N. J. Archives, IX., 524-526; Almon, Prior Documents
27. 36.

3 Proceedings of the Congress, in Almon, Prior Documents

1765]

STAMP ACT CONGRESS 149

non-importation agreements1 were made and domes-
tic manufactures encouraged. While the Stamp
Act was still pending, many of the people of Boston
had pledged themselves to abstain from the use
of English goods, and "particularly to break off
from the custom of wearing black clothes or other
mourning." After its passage, to increase the
growth and manufacture of wool in the province,
an agreement was " signed by a great portion of the
inhabitants of Boston, to eat no lamb during the
year."2 Frugality and industry were the maxims
of the hour.

Active resistance to the execution of the Stamp
Act centred in the associations of Sons of Liberty
which at this time sprang up everywhere in the
colonies and whose name may have been suggested
by Barre's speech. For a time these organizations
were kept secret ; but " as they increased, they grew
in boldness and publicity, announcing their com-
mittees of correspondence, and interchanging sol-
emn pledges of support." 3 They aimed directly at
forcible resistance. To enforce the non-importation
agreements and to compel the stamp distributers
to resign were their principal objects.

Nowhere was opposition more active or deter-
mined than in New York.4 Here Franklin's wood-cut

1 For example, in New York, N. Y . Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist.,
VII., 800.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 116, 117. Cf. Almon,
Prior Documents, 5. 3 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 183.

4 Dawson, Sons of Liberty, 69, et seq.

ISO PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

device, first employed against the French, of a snake
cut in parts, with the motto " join or die," was used
against Great Britain;1 and here, even before Vir-
ginia had raised the standard of resistance or
Massachusetts had pointed the way to union, "in-
dependence" was boldly suggested by John Morin
Scott. The "great fundamental principles of gov-
ernment," he wrote, "should be common to all its
parts and members, else the whole will be endan-
gered. If, then, the interest of the mother country
and her colonies cannot be made to coincide ; if the
same constitution may not take place in both; if
the welfare of the mother country necessarily re-
quires a sacrifice of the most natural rights of the
colonies — their right of making their own laws, and
disposing of their own property by representatives
of their own choosing — if such is really the case be-
tween Great Britain and her colonies, then the
connection between them ought to cease; and,
sooner or later, it must inevitably cease."2 In
September a New York newspaper announced that
on February 7, 1765, "Lady North American
Liberty" had " died of a cruel stamp on her vitals " ;
but, happily, she had left an only son, "prophet-
ically named Independence," on whom the "hopes
of all her disconsolate servants are placed for re-

1 In the Constitutional Courant, September, 1765. Cf. Dawson,
Sons of Liberty, 74; Thomas, Hist, of Printing, II., 322.

2 Scott's essay signed "Freeman," in Holt, N. Y. Gazette and
Weekly Postboy; Dawson, Sons of Liberty, 70.

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 151

lief under their afflictions, when he shall come of
age."1

Forcible annulment could scarcely fail to degen-
erate into mob - violence — the inevitable incident
of revolution. The first riots occurred in Boston,
where, August 8, the name of Andrew Oliver,
brother-in-law of Chief - Justice Hutchinson, had
appeared in a published list of stamp distributers.
On the morning of August 14, Oliver's effigy with
that of Lord Bute was seen suspended from an
elm in Boston, thereafter famous as the " Liberty
Tree." In the evening a great crowd, marching in
order and shouting, " Liberty, property, and no
stamps," carried the images on biers through the
old state - house, where the governor and council
were then sitting. Arriving at Kilby Street, they
pulled down the frame of a building which they
fancied Oliver designed for a stamp office, and then
used the fragments to burn the effigies before his
own home on Fort Hill, first smashing all the win-
dows next to the street.2 The following day Oliver
announced his resignation.

Worse things were soon to come. On Sunday,
August 25, the popular preacher, Jonathan Mahew,
warmly condemned the Stamp Act, indiscreetly
taking the text, " I would they were even cut off

1 Holt, N. Y. Gazette and Weekly Postboy, September 5, 1765;
Dawson, Sons of Liberty, 77.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, II., 120, 121; Bancroft,
United States (ed. of 1885), III., 135.

152 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

which trouble you." The next day a mob burned
the records of the vice - admiralty court, sacked
the house of the comptroller of customs, and de-
stroyed the fine mansion of Hutchinson, who was
erroneously believed to favor the Stamp Act, and
was disliked for his course regarding the writs of
assistance.1 " The very partition walls were beaten
down ; the furniture destroyed ; the family paintings
and plate defaced; a large sum of money pillaged;
and a valuable collection of books and manuscripts,
the fruit of thirty years' labor, almost entirely anni-
hilated."2 The manuscript of Hutchinson's history
of Massachusetts still " carries on its edges the mud
of the Boston streets into which it was thrown."

The town-meeting declared its detestation of these
proceedings. A few arrests were made; but the
prisoners were soon rescued by the people, and
none of the culprits were ever brought to justice.
December 17, Oliver suffered a more shameful in-
dignity. Alleging a rumor that he was about to
resume his office of stamp distributer the "true-
born sons of liberty" demanded a public denial.
Standing under the Liberty Tree before two thou-
sand people, he was forced to read a renunciation
of his office and swear to it on the spot before a
justice of the peace.8

1 Mass. Archives, 26, cited by Gray, in Quincy, Reports, 441.

7 Grahame, United States, IV., 216. Cf. Hutchinson, Hist, of
Mass. Bay., III., 124, et seq.

3 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 139; Gordon, United
States, I., 189.

1 76s] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 153

Similar outrages occurred in other colonies. At
Newport, on the very next day after Hutchinson's
house was destroyed, Augustus Johnson, the stamp
distributer, Thomas Moffat, a physician, and Martin
Howard, author of the able pamphlet above men-
tioned, were hanged and burned in effigy. The
following night the same mob gutted Howard's
house and injured his person; whereupon, in fear
of his life, with Moffat, he "took shelter in the
Signet man of war, and soon after departed for
Great Britain."1 Thus in the name of liberty free
speech was suppressed.

Naturally the wrath of the people was chiefly
directed against those Americans who had accepted
the post of stamp distributer. Besides those al-
ready mentioned, Meserve" of New Hampshire,
Coxe of New Jersey, McEvers of New York, Mercer
of Virginia, Houston of North Carolina, Lloyd of
South Carolina, Ingersoll of Connecticut, Hood of
Maryland, and even Franklin's friend, the stanch
Quaker, Hughes of Pennsylvania, all through reason
or terror were induced to resign. October 31, the
day before the Stamp Act was to take effect, all
the colonial governors except Hopkins, of Rhode
Island, took the oath to put it in force ; but already
every stamp distributer on the continent had
given up his post.

The first day of November began with the tolling
of muffled bells and the flying of pennants at half-

1 Almon, Prior Documents, 14.

154 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

mast. It " was signalled in several towns by pro-
cessions carrying the stamp act to be burned or
buried, or again by the funeral of a coffin bearing the
name of Liberty, which after being lowered into the
grave was raised again with the inscription ' Liberty
Revived.' Handbills posted at the street corners
in Boston warned those who should distribute or
use stamps to look to themselves." 1 Like notices
were posted in New York, where the day was spent
in tumultuous demonstrations ending in riots.2
For a time after this date business requiring the
use of stamps was generally suspended throughout
the colonies. Except in Rhode Island the courts
were closed. Ships hesitated to go to sea without
stamped clearance papers. But gradually business
was nearly everywhere renewed in open disregard
of the law. Nullification was virtually complete.

The first congress of the Revolution met in the
city hall at New York on Monday, October 7, 1765,
and remained in session until Friday the 25th.8
It was composed of twenty-seven members rep-
resenting nine colonies. Timothy Ruggles, a loy-
alist deputy of Massachusetts, was elected chair-
man, and John Cotton clerk. Conspicuous for
ability among the members were Edward Tilghman
of Maryland; Thomas McKean and Caesar Rodney

1 Ludlow, War of Am. Independence, 72.

2 Dawson, Sons of Liberty, 89, et seq.

3 The proceedings and state papers of the Congress are in
Niles, Weekly Register, II., 337-344; Niles, Principles and
Acts, 155-169; and Almon, Prior Documents, 26-37.

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 155

of Delaware; Philip Livingston of New York;
William Livingston of New1 Jersey ; John Dickinson
of Pennsylvania; Thomas Lynch, John Rutledge,
and Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina; and
James Otis of Massachusetts, the foremost speaker.
It was decided to base the liberties claimed by
Americans, not on royal charters, as Johnson of
Connecticut suggested, but upon higher principles
of natural equity. "A confirmation of our essential
and common rights as Englishmen," wrote Gadsden,
"may be pleaded from charters safely enough; but
any further dependence upon them may be fatal.
We should stand upon the broad common ground of
those natural rights that we all feel and know as
men, and as descendants of Englishmen. I wish
the charters may not ensnare us at last by drawing
different colonies to act differently in this great
cause. Whenever that is the case, all will be over
with the whole. There ought to be no New Eng-
land man, no New-Yorker, known on the continent,
but all of us Americans/ ' 1

After eleven days' debate a " declaration of rights
and grievances' ' was adopted, consisting of a pre-
amble and fourteen resolutions. On the ques-
tion of natural rights, the declaration announced
that his majesty's subjects in the colonies owe the
same allegiance and are entitled to the same "in-
herent rights and liberties " as " his natural born

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 150, quoting a
MS. letter of Gadsden.

156 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

subjects" in Great Britain. Among the essential
rights of Englishmen are those of trial by jury and
of not being taxed save by their own consent.
This led to an assertion as to representation: that
the "people of these colonies are not, and, from
local circumstances, cannot be, represented in the
house of commons." Their only representatives
"are persons chosen therein by themselves." The
logical deduction was that no taxes " ever have
been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them,
but by their respective legislatures." Therefore, the
recent acts of Parliament laying stamp duties and
extending the jurisdiction of the courts of ad-
miralty "have a manifest tendency to subvert the
rights and liberties of the colonies." Indirect taxes
are not squarely repudiated as unconstitutional;
but the recent restrictions on American commerce
are described as "burthensome and grievous."

Similar rights and immunities are claimed in the
" address" to the king, the " memorial" to the Lords,
and the " petition" to the Commons. In the latter
the deputies say that there is a " material distinction
in reason and sound policy, at least, between the
necessary exercise of parliamentary jurisdiction in
general acts, for the amendment of the common law,
and the regulation of trade and commerce through
the whole empire, and the exercise of that jurisdic-
tion, by imposing taxes on the colonies" ; and " that
it would be for the real interest of Great Britain,
as well as her colonies, that the late regulations

1765] STAMP ACT CONGRESS 157

should be rescinded" and the recent tax laws re-
pealed.

The congress of 1765 is a fact of decisive meaning
in the rise of the American nation. It is an ex-
pression of the sentiment of union forced out by
the revenue acts. Its state papers — the first drawn
up by an intercolonial body during the Revolution
— are admirable in form and character. In the
declaration of rights a body representing the ma-
jority of the American people first set forth the
cardinal principles upon which the republic was
soon to rest.

VOL. VIII. — 12

\

CHAPTER IX

THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT

(1766)

A MONTH before the bursting of the storm
aroused by its policy the Grenville ministry
had fallen. It was driven from office under cir-
cumstances which revealed that a struggle for con-
stitutional liberty must be waged on both sides of
the sea. The king had never given full confidence to
his cabinet; and he continued to take secret coun-
sel with his favorite, the Earl of Bute, under whose
direction the new administration was formed.1
Determined to govern as well as reign, he strove
to do so through the same desperate expedient of
balancing the curia against the camera which had
brought ruin to Charles I. and long before him to
Edward II.2 For the maxim that the king can do
no wrong is true only when he acts solely through
his constitutional advisers.

At first Grenville seems to have found himself
little more than the mere instrument of the " king's
friends." According to Lord Chesterfield, the " pub-

1 Grenville Papers, II., 32-40, 85, et seq.

2 Stubbs, Const. Hist, of Eng., II., 311.

158

1765] STAMP ACT REPEAL

159

lie looked still at Lord Bute through the curtain
which indeed was a very transparent one." Gren-
ville could not patiently brook such an invasion of
his province. He reproached the king for with-
holding confidence from his minister. "As fond
of power as the king himself, — and with a will as
strong and imperious, — tenacious of his rights as a
minister, and confident in his own abilities and in-
fluence,— he looked to parliament rather than to the
crown, as the source of his authority." 1 The king,
finding himself opposed and thwarted by a ministry
which had been forced upon him, resolved to get rid
of it as soon as practicable.2 This he first attempted
in August, 1763, when Bute was commissioned to
invite Pitt to form a new administration; but the
project was dropped when it was learned that Pitt
proposed to recall Earl Temple and the very Whig
leaders whom his majesty had said he should never
suffer to " come into his service while he lived to hold
the scepter."3

In 1765 the crisis came in a contest over the
regency bill. The king had just recovered from
his fit of insanity, and the heir to the throne was
a child two years of age. Clearly there was need
of providing for the exercise of the royal functions
in cases of emergency. Slighting his cabinet, the
king called upon Lord Holland for advice. In turn

1 May, Const. Hist, of Eng. (Am. ed. of 1899), L, 34, 35.

2 Grenville Papers, II., 83-85, 89.

3 Ibid., 93, 105, 196; Bedford Correspondence, III., 224.

160 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

the offended ministers, when commanded to bring
in a bill for a regency, attempted to disqualify the
king's mother, the ambitious princess dowager, who
was disliked as the friend and former patroness of
Bute. Wearied by the complaints of Grenville and
the blunt speeches of Bedford,1 the king now de-
termined to get rid of the ministry at the cost even
of a complete surrender to the detested Whigs. At
his request his uncle, the duke of Cumberland,
entered into negotiations with Pitt. "I am ready
to go to St. James's," said the Great Commoner,
"if I can carry the constitution with me." He was
promised a free hand in making up a cabinet; gen-
eral warrants were to be condemned; while Barr6,
Conway, and others, who had been deprived of their
offices for their votes in Parliament, were to be re-
stored. At a personal interview with the king in
June, Pitt declared himself against the late acts for
taxing the colonies and restraining their trade. On
this point, too, the king seemed to yield. Pitt,
therefore, invited his brother-in-law, Earl Temple,
to join him in forming an administration; but
Temple, at variance with Pitt regarding the Stamp
Act, declined to serve, and drew nearer to Grenville,
also his brother-in-law. Without his aid Pitt thought
it unwise to proceed.
The triumph of Grenville now seemed complete.

1 Walpole, Memoirs of George III., II., 159-162, 179, 182;
Bedford Correspondence, III., pp. xliii. -xlv., 286-288; Gren-
ville Papers, III., 194.

1 7 6s] STAMP ACT REPEAL

161

Already, among the conditions of remaining in
office, the ministry had forced the king to promise
that Bute should not be suffered to interfere in
the conduct of the government " in any manner or
shape whatever."1

At this juncture Cumberland succeeded in form-
ing an opposition ministry. July 10, while busy
with plans for the execution of the Stamp Act,
Grenville was summoned to St. James's to lay
down his office. "He besought his majesty, as he
valued his own safety, not to suffer anyone to
advise him to separate or draw the line between his
British and American dominions"; declared that
the colonies were the "richest jewel of his crown";
and that "if any man ventured to defeat the reg-
ulations laid down for the colonies, by a slackness in
the execution, he should look upon him as a criminal
and the betrayer of his country." 2

The new ministry seemed likely to be more
favorable to the American cause. As premier at
the head of the treasury was placed the Marquis
of Rockingham, leader of the Whig aristocracy, who
had been deprived of the lord-lieutenancy of his
county for his vote against the peace in 17 63. 3
Moreover, it seemed fitting that General Conway,
who had opposed the Stamp Act and was likewise a

1 Grenville Papers, III., 41, 184-186; Walpole, Memoirs of
George III., II., 175; Adolphus, Hist, of Eng., L, 179.

2 Grenville Papers , III., 211-216.
'Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, I., 154-159.

162 PRELIMINARIES OP REVOLUTION [1765

victim of the royal proscriptions, should become
secretary of state for the southern or colonial divis-
ion. But the ministry was weak, containing not a
single man of conspicuous ability.

Yet in no way was Grenville's fall due to the
Stamp Act. During Cumberland's negotiations for
a new ministry colonial affairs were not even men-
tioned; and for six months after Rockingham came
to power Pitt's views regarding American taxation
seem to have been unknown to the ministry.1 " It
was probably a complete surprise to them to learn
that it [the Stamp Act] had brought the colonies to
the verge of rebellion, and in the first months of
their power they appear to have been quite uncer-
tain what policy they would pursue."2

The English people were divided on the issue.
The landed aristocracy in general looked upon the
colonists as rebels, and would have compelled obe-
dience by military force. On the other hand, the
merchants of many cities and towns petitioned for
repeal. They said that the "colonists were in-
debted to the merchants of this country to the
amount of several millions sterling for English
goods which had been exported to America; that
the colonists had hitherto faithfully made good
their engagements, but that they now declared their
inability to do so; that they would neither give
orders for new goods nor pay for those which they

1 See Cumberland's memorial, in Albemarle, Memoirs of Rock-
ingham, I., 185-203, 269. 2 Lecky, England, III., 361.

t

1765] STAMP ACT REPEAL 163

had actually received; and that unless parliament
speedily retraced its steps, multitudes of English
manufacturers would be reduced to bankruptcy.
In Manchester, Nottingham, Leeds, and many other
towns, thousands of artisans had been thrown out of
employment. Glasgow complained that the stamp
act was threatening it with absolute ruin, for its
trade was principally with America, and not less
than half a million of money was due by the colonists
of Maryland and Virginia alone" to its merchants.1

While the ministry was still undecided the king
saw clearly that the crisis was of vital meaning. He
declared himself "provoked" and " humilitated " by
the riots and the surrender of the stamps in New
York. To Secretary Conway on December 5, 1765,
he wrote: "I am more and more grieved at the
accounts of America. Where this spirit will end is
not to be said. It is undoubtedly the most serious
matter that ever came before parliament; it re-
quires more deliberation, candour, and temper than
I fear it will meet with." 2 Already, on October 3,
the Privy Council had reported to him that the
question was of too "high a nature" for its de-
termination, and " proper only for the consideration
of parliament." 3

When after recess Parliament came together,

1 Lecky, England, III., 362; Cobbett- Hansard, Pari. Hist.,
XVI., 133-137; Walpole, Memoirs of George III., II., 269-297.

2 Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, I., 256.
■ Almon, Prior Documents, 38.

1 64 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

January 14, 1766, the king submitted to its "wis-
dom" the papers relating to the Stamp Act in
America.1 Now began one of the most memorable
debates in the constitutional history of England.
The line of party division was speedily drawn.
Repeal of the act was urged by Conway, Camden,
and Pitt; while a powerful opposition was led by
Mansfield, Bedford, and Grenville, around whom
rallied the representatives of the Tory aristocracy,
with the friends of the king, who resolutely opposed
the repeal and carefully watched the proceedings of
Parliament. The opposition rejected the distinc-
tion between internal and external taxation, and
strenuously asserted the legislative supremacy of
Parliament over the colonies in all cases what-
soever. Nugent insisted that the "honours and
dignity of the kingdom obliged us to compel the
execution of the stamp act, except the right was
acknowledged, and the repeal solicited as a favour."

Grenville severely censured the ministry for
failing to give earlier notice of the commotions in
America. These, he said, "began in July, and now
we are in the middle of January; lately they were
only occurrences, they are now grown to disturbances,
to tumults and riots. I doubt they border on open
rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day,"
from Mr. Pitt, "be confirmed, I fear they will lose
that name to take that of revolution. The govern-

1 They are in Cobbett - Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 112,
et seq.; and Almon, Prior Documents, 38-57.

1766] STAMP ACT REPEAL

165

ment over them being dissolved, a revolution will
take place in America. I cannot understand the
difference between external and internal taxes.
They are the same in effect, and only differ in name.
That this kingdom has the sovereign, the supreme
legislative power over America, is granted. It
cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of that
sovereign power. . . . Ungrateful people of America !
Bounties have been extended to them. . . . You have
relaxed in their favour, the act of navigation, that
palladium of the British commerce. " 1

The most notable argument on this side was
made by Chief- Justice Mansfield in the House of
Lords. He spoke to the " question strictly as a
matter of right." The colonies, he insisted, had
always been subject to the supreme jurisdiction of
Parliament. Duties have been laid upon them
" affecting the very inmost parts of their commerce.
. . . There can be no doubt, my lords, but that the
inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented
in parliament, as the greatest part of the people of
England are represented; among nine millions of
whom there are eight which have no votes in electing
members of parliament. Every objection, there-
fore, to the dependency of the colonies upon parlia-
ment, which arises to it upon the ground of rep-
resentation, goes to the whole present constitution
of Great Britain; and I suppose it is not meant to

1 Almon, Prior Documents, 60, 61; Cobbett-Hansard, Pari,
Hist., XVI., 101-103.

166 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

remodel that too." Like Grenville, he wholly re-
jected the distinction between external and in-
ternal taxation. "For nothing can be more clear
than that a tax of ten or twenty per cent, laid upon
tobacco, either in the ports of Virginia or London,
is a duty laid upon the inland plantations of Vir-
ginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wheresoever
the tobacco may be grown." 1

From the lawyer's stand-point the argument of
Mansfield in support of the theory of virtual rep-
resentation seems conclusive.2 As a mere matter
of strict legalism the colonists may have been rep-
resented in Parliament and bound by its legislative
acts, whether imposing external or internal taxation.
Yet true statesmanship might render a very dif-
ferent decision. Abstract justice might demand a
new precedent to establish a new law. How else
has the constitution of England been built up unless
by thus yielding to the advancing needs of the
people under changing conditions? Possibly that
which seemed to transcend the imagination of
Mansfield had actually come to pass? If, indeed,
the existing constitution was really such as he de-
scribed, had not the hour come for reorganization ?

Pitt took a more statesman-like position. In his
view the contention of the colonists was sustained
by the spirit of the constitution. "The subject of

Goodrich, British Eloquence, 148-151; Cobbett-Hansard,
Pari. Hist., XVI., 172-177.

2 Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, V., 206 ,

1766] STAMP ACT REPEAL 167

this debate is of greater importance than ever en-
gaged the attention of this house, that subject only
excepted, when, nearly a century ago, it was a
question whether you yourselves were to be bond
or free. The manner in which this affair will be
terminated will decide the judgment of posterity
on the glory of this kingdom, and the wisdom of
its government during the present reign." "Tax-
ation," he declared, "is no part of the governing
power"; and he denounced "the idea of a virtual
representation of America" in the House of Com-
mons as the "most contemptible that ever entered
into the head of a man. . . . There is a plain dis-
tinction between taxes levied for the purpose of
raising revenue and duties imposed for the regula-
tion of trade." Therefore, let the Stamp Act be
repealed. "At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of this country over the colonies be as-
serted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be
.made to extend to every point of legislation, that
we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures,
and exercise every power whatsoever, except that
of taking their money out of their pockets without
their consent." 1

Thus Pitt enforced the argument already pre-
sented by the American Congress and the American
pamphleteers. "To what purpose," Otis had re-

1 Speeches of Chatham (ed. of 1848), 70-79; Almon, Prior
Documents, 57-59, 61-64; Almon, Anecdotes of Pitt, I., 424, et
seq.; Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 97-101, 103-108.

168 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

torted in reply to Soame Jenyns, " to ring everlast-
ing changes to the colonists on the cases of Man-
chester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, who return no
members? If these now so considerable places are
not represented, they ought to be! Besides, the
counties in which those respectable abodes of tinkers,
tinmen, and pedlars lie, return members; so do all
the neighboring cities and boroughs. In the choice
of the former, if they have no vote, they must
naturally and necessarily have a great influence. I
believe every gentleman of a landed estate, near a
flourishing manufactory, will be careful enough of its
interest." 1

While the Congress was in session, precisely three
months before Pitt's speech was delivered, Daniel
Dulany had likewise exposed the fallacy of the
argument from virtual representation, as consisting
of " facts not true, and of conclusions inadmissible."
For in Great Britain the interests "of the non-
electors, the electors, and the representatives, are
individually the same; to say nothing of the con-
nection among neighbors, friends, and relatives.
The security of the non-electors against oppression,
is, that their oppression will fall also upon the
electors and the representatives. The one can't
be injured, and the other indemnified. Further, if
the non-electors should not be taxed by the British
parliament, they would not be taxed at all," a
"solecism in the political system." On the other

1 Otis, Considerations, 6-10, 51.

1766] STAMP ACT REPEAL

169

hand, "the inhabitants of the colonies are, as such,
incapable of being electors, the privilege of election
being exercisable only in person, and therefore if
every inhabitant of America had the requisite free-
hold not one could vote, but on the supposition of
ceasing to be an inhabitant of America, and be-
coming a resident in Great Britain, a supposition
which would be impertinent, because it shifts the
question." Moreover, the colonies may be taxed
by their own legislatures, so that " there would not
necessarily be an iniquitous and absurd exemption,
from their not being represented by the house of
commons." 1 Dulany's able pamphlet, it is clear,
had a direct influence on the form in which Pitt ex-
pressed his views.

The most dramatic incident of the struggle for
repeal was the examination, February 13, 1766, of
Benjamin Franklin before the committee of the
House of Commons. Doubtless some of the more
telling leading questions were artfully planned be-
forehand; yet never were Franklin's ready wit, his
shrewdness and common - sense shown to better
advantage. His position was a delicate one; for
if possible he had to defend the American cause
without wounding the sensibilities of the British
nation. When questioned, he said that the colo-
nists already paid "many and very heavy taxes."
In Pennsylvania these taxes were levied "for the

1 Dulany, Considerations on the Propriety of Taxing the
Colonies, 3-8.

170 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

support of the civil and military establishments of
the country, and to discharge the heavy debt con-
tracted in the last war." "Are not all the people
very able to pay those taxes ?" " No. The frontier
counties, all along the continent, having been fre-
quently ravaged by the enemy and, greatly im-
poverished, are able to pay very little tax." There-
fore ''our late tax laws do expressly favour those
counties, excusing the sufferers." "Are not the
colonies, from their circumstances, very able to pay
the stamp duty?" "In my opinion there is not
gold and silver enough in the colonies to pay the
stamp duty for one year." Moreover, from the
lack of post-roads the stamps could not every-
where be distributed; and if there were roads,
" sending for stamps by post would occasion an ex-
pense of postage, amounting in many cases to much
more than that of the stamps themselves."

"Don't you know that the money arising from
the stamps was all to be laid out in America?"
" I know it is appropriated by the act to the Amer-
ican service; but it will be spent in the conquered
colonies, where the soldiers are; not in the colonies
that pay it." " Do you think it right that America
should be protected by this country and pay no
part of the expense?" "That is not the case. The
colonies raised, clothed, and paid, during the last
war, near twenty-five thousand men, and spent
many millions." "Were not you reimbursed by
parliament?" "We were only reimbursed what, in

1766] STAMP ACT REPEAL

171

your opinion, we had advanced beyond our pro-
portion, or beyond what might reasonably be ex-
pected from us; and it was a very small part of
what we spent. Pennsylvania in particular, dis-
bursed about five hundred thousand pounds, and
the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed
sixty thousand pounds."

"Does the distinction between internal and ex-
ternal taxes exist in the words of the charter" of
Pennsylvania? "No, I believe not." Then, said
Charles Townshend, may they not on the same
ground of Magna Charta and the petition of right
"object to Parliament's right of external taxation?"
Franklin's answer was prophetic. "They never
have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
used here to show them that there is no difference,
and that if you have no right to tax them internally,
you have none to tax them externally, or make any
other law to bind them. At present they do not
reason so; but in time they may possibly be con-
vinced by these arguments." 1

The king was stubbornly opposed to the repeal;
and to influence legislative action his opinion was
made known by Lord Strange, Lord Bute, and
others to members of Parliament.2 Even Mans-

1 For the examination, see Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.),
III., 409-450; Almon, Prior Documents, 64-81; or Cobbett-
Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 137-159.

2 Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, I., 250, 272, 292-294;
Grenville Papers, III., 353-355, 3744 Walpole, Memoirs of
George HI., II., 257, et seq., 288, 331.

172 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

field stooped to give the dangerous advice "that,
though it would be unconstitutional to endeavor
by his majesty's name to carry questions in parlia-
ment, yet where the lawful rights of the king and
parliament were to be asserted and maintained, he
thought the making his majesty's opinion in sup-
port of those rights to be known, was very fit and
becoming." 1 To frustrate this influence Rocking-
ham acted with decision, obtaining the king's writ-
ten consent to the passage of the bill.2

Accordingly, February 22, against Jenkinson's
motion for a mere modification of the act, Conway,
by a vote of 275 to 167, was given leave to bring
in a bill for the total repeal of the Stamp Act. This
was regarded as a decisive victory. Outside the
Parliament house Grenville was hissed; while Con-
way and Pitt received an ovation from the crowd.
On March 4 the bill passed the Commons; March
17, not without two formal protests,3 it was carried
in the Lords ; and on the next day the king's assent
brought to an end a contest longer and more bitter
than that aroused by any measure since 1689. At
the same time, unfortunately, without a division
in either house, the declaratory bill became a law.
This act, which Pitt called a resolution "for Eng-
land's right to do what the treasury pleased with

1 Grenville Papers, III., 374.

2 Albemarle, Memoirs of Rockingham, h, 300, et seq. Cf.
May, Const. Hist, of Eng., I., 43.

3 Rogers, Protests of the Lords, II., 77-89; or Almon, Prior
Documents, 81-89.

1766] STAMP ACT REPEAL

173

three millions of freemen,"1 not only asserts that
the king and Parliament have " full power and au-
thority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force
and validity to bind the colonies and people of
America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain,
in all cases whatsoever"; but also that all resolu-
tions or proceedings in the colonies denying such
power are "utterly null and void."2

1 Chatham Correspondence, II., 364, 365.
1 6 George III., chap. xii.

VOL. VIII.— 13

CHAPTER X

THE TOWNSHEND REVENUE ACTS

(1766-1767)

THE declaratory act has been represented as the
price paid by a weak and divided ministry for
the repeal of the stamp tax — as a solace to the
offended pride and dignity of the British Parliament.
This view was supported in the debate on the
motion to repeal the act in 1777 ; 1 and there is other
evidence to sustain it. If such, indeed, be the
truth, it shows only more clearly how serious was
the dilemma in which the short-sighted policy of
Grenville had involved the government. Events
were soon to prove that the price paid was very
dear. For the moment the colonists united in
spontaneous thank-offering for the boon of justice
which had been granted them. " The repeal of the
stamp act," wrote John Adams, "has hushed into
silence almost every popular clamor, and com'
posed every wave of popular disorder into a smooth
and peaceful calm."2 The Sons of Liberty ceased
to meet. No one thought of separation. Nothing

1 Cobbett- Hansard, Pari. Hist., XIX., 563 et seq.

2 Adams, Works, II., 203.

174

1777] TOWNSHEND ACTS

175

was needed but a moderately wise policy on the
part of the home government to hold the affectionate
allegiance of the American people. "A feeling of
real and genuine loyalty to the mother-country ap-
pears to have at this time existed in the colonies,
though it required much skill to maintain it." 1

Such skill was utterly lacking. The rejoicings
of the colonies were short-lived. From the outset
some among them had favored united opposition
to the declaratory act;2 and other grounds for
the revival of discontent were not wanting. First
among these was the attempted enforcement of the
billeting or mutiny act, which had been renewed
under the Rockingham administration. The clause
requiring the colonial assemblies to make provision
for quartering the king's troops was held to be un-
constitutional, because a command was thus laid
by one legislative body upon another; and unjust,
since the whole burden would fall upon the colonies
where the army chanced to be located.

Resistance was first made in New York, then the
headquarters of the British force in America. The
requisition for supplies made by the general through
the governor was granted only in part by the
provincial assembly, because some of the articles
demanded were such as in England were not pro-
vided for troops when in barracks. The bill making
partial provision was approved by Sir Henry Moore,

1 Lecky, England, III., 373.

2 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 202, and n. 2.

176 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

the governor, although in his letter to the ministry
he did not concede the justice of the assembly's
plea.1 He significantly added, "My Message is
treated merely as a Requisition made here and
they have carefully avoided the least mention of
the act on which it is founded, and it is my opinion
that every act of Parliament, when not backed by a
sufficient Power to enforce it will meet with the
same Fate." In reply to the governor's report,
Shelburne, then secretary of state, announced that
the king expected obedience to the act in its full
extent and meaning; thus needlessly laying up
ample store of future trouble. The assembly re-
fused to comply, and "in their answer to the gov-
ernor's speech to them, called in question the
authority of parliament." The result was the sus-
pension of the assembly by the Townshend act,
presently to be considered.

Massachusetts was following the example of New
York. A company of artillery, recently arrived
in Boston, had been lodged in the barracks at
Castle William, and, according to custom, Governor
Bernard, with the advice of the council, had issued
a warrant on the treasury to pay the expense of
providing it with fire and candles. At the January
session, 1767, the house of representatives ex-
pressed their resentment at this proceeding. The
governor was asked "whether any provision has

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 168; N. Y. Docs. Rel.
to Col. Hist., VII., 831.

1767] TOWNSHEND ACTS

177

been made, at the expense of this government, for
his Majesty's troops lately arrived in this harbor,
and by whom?" and whether his "Excellency has
reason to expect the arrival of any more to be
quartered in this province?" In his answer Ber-
nard alleged that provision for the artillery had
been made in pursuance of the late billeting act of
Parliament, and that he had " received no advice
whatever of any other troops being quartered in
this province." Whereupon the house promptly
responded " that it is by virtue of the royal charter
alone, that the Governor and Council have any au-
thority to issue money out of the treasury, and that
only according to such acts as are, or may be, in
force within this province."

At the same time the house claimed for itself " the
privilege of originating, granting, and disposing of
taxes"; and expressed "concern that an act of
Parliament should yet be in being, which appears
to us to be as real a grievance" as the stamp tax,
"which so justly alarmed the continent." In reply
the governor, shifting his ground, claimed that his
course was fully "justified not only by the usage
of this government, but by the authority of the
General Court itself";.1 and so the incident was al-
lowed to drop.

Another measure of the British government,
reasonable and just in itself, though impolitic, was
destined, partly through the manner of its execu-

1 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 105-108.

178 PRELIMINARIES OP REVOLUTION [1766

tion, to become a source of irritation. Under au-
thority of a resolution of the House of Commons,
Secretary Conway in a circular letter asked the co-
lonial assemblies to compensate the sufferers for
the property destroyed in the Stamp Act riots.
In most cases the colonies were slow in respond
ing. The request was looked upon as unwarranted
interference by Parliament: it was insisted that
indemnity, if granted, should be the free and
spontaneous act of the people through their own
pr eresentatives .

In Massachusetts, notably, resistance was pro-
voked through the unwise conduct of the governor.
Bernard was honest and well-meaning, but short-
sighted in policy and arrogant in manner. He was
as indiscreet in his acts as he was violent in his
speeches. Earlier he had sympathized with the
popular cause. He had opposed the Sugar Act as
unjust and the Stamp Act as inexpedient, while
maintaining in principle the right of parliamentary
taxation. But in his confidential correspondence
with the ministry he zealously urged a remodelling
of the colonial charters in favor of a uniform and
more centralized type of government; and his in-
judicious course in the present crisis proved him
entirely unfit for his post.

At the meeting of the general court on May 29,
1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act was an-
nounced, Bernard managed to get into a bitter
quarrel with the house. First he vetoed the choice

1766]

TOWNSHEND ACTS

179

of James Otis as speaker; then the house declined
to re-elect to the council the lieutenant-governor,
the secretary, the attorney-general, and one of the
judges of the superior court; in revenge the governor
negatived the choice of six persons belonging to
the popular party. Thus he put himself thoroughly
in the wrong ; for the house had the clearest right to
ignore the officers of the crown in the choice of
councillors, if it saw fit. According to Lieutenant-
Governor Hutchinson, who was himself thus re-
jected, Bernard "had equal right to declare his
disapprobation of the persons elected. . . . Governors,
to avoid giving offence, had, from disuse, almost lost
their right of negativing the council. The house
had kept up their right by constant use, though
never by making so great a change at once, except
in one instance, at the time of the land bank." 1

The house did not complain of the governor's
exercise of his legal authority; but Bernard, by
impugning his adversaries' motives, delivered him-
self into their hands. He petulantly accused them
of attacking the government "in form"; of having
the "prof est intention to deprive it of its best
and most able servants, whose only crime is their
fidelity to the Crown" ; and, referring to his vetoes,
he declared himself " obliged to exercise every legal
and constitutional power to maintain the king's
authority against this ill judged and ill timed op-
pugnation of it." These and similar indiscreet

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III.; 149.

180 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

utterances in his speech gave the house a decided
advantage, of which in its reply it made unsparing
use.1

A few days later the governor took another false
step. On June 3, in imperious tone, he placed
before the council and house what he styled the
"requisition" for compensation, "based on a resolu-
tion of the house of commons " ; thus using the word
which both the Commons, after debate, and Con-
way, in his letter, had carefully avoided.2 "The au-
thority with which it is introduced," he said, " should
preclude all disputation about complying with it."
At the same time, in terms which were construed
as a threat to take away the charter, he attacked
the house for excluding Hutchinson and the other
officials from the council. Very naturally the house
declined to consider the requisition before it had
consulted the towns; and not until the next gen-
eral court in November was a bill finally passed,
"granting compensation to the sufferers, and gen-
eral pardon, indemnity, and oblivion to the of-
fenders, in the late times." 3 Even the fines already
paid by the latter were returned. It is, perhaps, not
surprising that the bill was vetoed by the king ; but
not before the money had been paid in accordance
with its provisions. These incidents are here dwelt

1 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 75-81. Cf. Hutchinson, Hist,
of Mass. Bay, III., 149, 150.

2 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 219.

3 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 81-84, 93-98, 100.

1767] TOWNSHEND ACTS

181

upon, because such unseemly bickerings, often
provoked by the folly of the royal governors, had
much to do with the development of revolutionary
sentiment.

Meantime, in England, events of the greatest im-
portance for the colonies were taking place. Al-
ready, in July, 1766, the feeble administration of
Rockingham had fallen. Grafton became nominal
head of the new ministry; while its real head was
Pitt, who, to the disappointment of his friends
throughout the world, presently entered the House
of Lords as Earl of Chatham. To Conway was
given the leadership of the Commons; Shelburne
took charge of colonial affairs; Camden became
lord chancellor; and, against the judgment of Pitt,
Charles Townshend was intrusted with the ex-
chequer. The administration soon proved itself to
be weak and disunited. Pitt, enfeebled by disease
and depressed by the consciousness of waning pop-
ularity due to his acceptance of a peerage, soon
ceased to take active part in public business. In
October he retired to Bath to try the virtue of its
healing waters. At once Charles Townshend came
forward to seize the leadership of the ministry.
"From this time," admits Lecky, "the English
government of America is little more than a series
of deplorable blunders."1

January 26, 1767, Grenville moved that "Amer-
ica, like Ireland, should support an establishment of

1 Lecky, England, III., 379.

182 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

her own." 1 The burden, he said, would be about
£400,000, or a sum nearly equal to one shilling in
the pound of the land tax. In the debate which
ensued, Townshend declared that " administration
has applied its attention to give relief to Great
Britain from bearing the whole expense of secur-
ing, defending, and protecting America and the
West India islands; I shall bring into the house
some propositions that I hope may tend, in time,
to ease the people of England upon this head,
and yet not be heavy in any manner upon the
people in the colonies. I know the mode by which
a revenue may be drawn from America with-
out offence." Continuing, he said he was still a
firm advocate of the stamp tax ; that he laughed at
the "absurd distinction" between internal and ex-
ternal taxes, a distinction ' ' ridiculous in the opin-
ion of everybody except the Americans"; and he
pledged himself to find a revenue nearly sufficient
for the military expenses in America.2 The minis-
ters were astonished at this bold usurpation of lead-
ership. Not only was Townshend's pledge given
without knowledge of the cabinet, but in opposition
to the "known decision of all of its members." Yet
in the absence of Chatham neither Grafton nor any
one else had sufficient authority to demand the dis-
missal of the insubordinate minister.3

1 Lecky, England, III., 380.

2 Chatham Correspondence, III., 17S, 179, 182-188; Gren-
ville Papers, IV., 211, 222. Cf. Bancroft, United States (ed.of
1885), III., 338. 3 Lecky, England, III., 381.

1767]

TOWNSHEND ACTS

Soon after this, on February 27, the government
was defeated on an important measure. Acting
on the suggestion of Grenville already mentioned,
the land tax was reduced by one shilling in the
pound; thus in effect making another attempt to
secure a revenue from America inevitable. Chatham
was too ill to cause the removal of Townshend, and
from this time onward practically ceased to take any
part in the cabinet councils.

The chancellor of the exchequer now dominated
the ministry; and so he proceeded to take the first
step in the redemption of his pledge. In May,
1767, he secured the enactment of three laws; by
one the New York assembly was suspended until it
should comply with the mutiny act; by another a
board of commissioners of the customs, with large
powers, was established in America to administer
the acts of trade ; while a third laid an import duty
on glass, red and white lead, paper, and tea.1 It
was expected that this tax would produce about
£40,000, to be expended under the king's sign-
manual in providing salaries for the royal judges
and governors in America. By this revenue act
writs of assistance were formally legalized ; and the
drawback of the import duty hitherto allowed the
East India Company on the re-exportation of china
and earthenware to America was discontinued.
This was offset by granting a drawback on re-
exportation of the entire duty paid in England on

1 7 George III., chaps, xli., xlvi., lix.

184 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

coffee and cocoa produced in America; and by a
separate act1 a similar drawback for five years
was granted on the re-exportation of tea from
England to Ireland or the colonies.

Townshend professed to believe that the Amer-
icans would submit to his revenue law, because, un-
like the Stamp Act, it established an "external"
tax on imports. The result soon showed how fatally
he deceived himself. The new measure was clearly
more dangerous than the old. Like the latter, it
created a tax for revenue ; but now the revenue was
to be used in giving the crown complete control
of the colonial governors and the colonial judges.
The assemblies would no longer have any check
upon them. So long as the abuse existed of appoint-
ing the provincial judges during the king's pleasure,
to make them solely dependent upon the crown for
their salaries would be to invite corruption and
tyranny ; and the evils sure to arise from the similar
position of the royal governors would be nearly as
bad.

Moreover, the new policy was inaugurated just
after the colonists were elated by a signal victory
in the repeal of the Stamp Act. A notable change
was taking place in their attitude regarding the
authority of Parliament. Many of the leaders no
longer drew the line at internal taxation for revenue.
Already in the debate on the request for indemnity,
Joseph Hawley of Massachusetts, had won the

1 7 George III., chap. lvi.

1767] TOWNSHEND ACTS 185

approval of Otis by declaring that Parliament " has
no right to legislate for us." From this time on-
ward the popular cry of " No representation, no
taxation" was rapidly changed for "No representa-
tion, no legislation."1

Everywhere in the colonies the Townshend acts
suspending the functions of the New York assembly
and imposing a tax for revenue were regarded as
unconstitutional. Once more the continent was
roused to discussion: non-importation agreements
were again signed; resolutions, addresses, and me-
morials were again prepared; the printing-press
became active. But in the outset the new move-
ment was ominously free from violence; the people
were learning the value of self-restraint. November
20, when the revenue act was to take effect, passed
quietly away.

In this crisis the best expression of popular senti-
ment came from John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania.
In the Farmer's Letters, published before the close of
1767, he endeavored "to convince the people of
these colonies, that they are, at this moment, ex-
posed to the most imminent dangers ; and to persuade
them, immediately, vigorously, and unanimously, to
exert themselves, in the most firm but most peace-
able manner, for obtaining relief." Liberty's cause
is "of too much dignity, to be sullied by turbulence
and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 234; Lecky, Eng-
land, III., 374.

1 t? /

186 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

suitable to her nature. Those who engage in it
should breathe a sedate yet fervent spirit, animat-
ing them to actions of prudence, justice, modesty,
bravery, humanity, and magnanimity." He repu-
diates the thought of independence. "Let us be-
have like dutiful children, who have received un-
merited blows from a beloved parent"; but "let
these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds:
that we cannot be happy, without being free; that
we cannot be free, without being secure in ou
property ; that we cannot be secure in our property,
if, without our consent, others may, as by right,
take it away; that taxes imposed on us by parlia-
ment, do thus take it away." "Great Britain
claims and exercises the right to prohibit manu-
factures in America. Once admit that she may lay
duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose
of levying money on us only, she then will have
nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles
which she prohibits us to manufacture, and the
tragedy of American liberty is finished." 1

Organized action against the new measures was
first taken in Massachusetts. October 28, 1767, the
Boston town - meeting 2 renewed the non- importa-
tion agreement, and its proceedings were published
in the newspapers under the heading, "Save your

1 Dickinson, Letters from a Farmer, in his Political Writings,
I., 167-173, 275. Cf. Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 237-240.

2 Boston Town Records, 1158-1769, 220; Frothingham, Ris
of the Republic, 209.

1768] TOWNSHEND ACTS 187

money, and you save your country." The leading
spirit in the assembly, which came together Decem-
ber 30, was its clerk, Samuel Adams. In January,
1768, the house, after long discussion, adopted a
letter to DeBerdt, the colonial agent, written by
Adams, and intended to be placed before the min-
istry. Letters were also sent to Chatham, Cam-
den, Rockingham, and others, while a loyal petition
was presented to the king. In these documents
the old arguments against parliamentary taxation
were renewed, and the recent acts were character-
ized as unjust and unconstitutional. February 11,
1768, a circular letter to the other assemblies on the
continent was adopted. In this letter, which, like
the petition to the king, was drawn by Samuel
Adams, the house gave an account of its own action,
and suggested the need of harmony " upon so deli-
cate a point." 1 All these papers are admirable
in form and very moderate in tone. The general
supremacy of Parliament under the constitution is
frankly admitted; all thought of independence is
disclaimed; while the dangerous tendency of the
recent legislation is pointed out.

The circular letter drew forth sympathetic re-
plies from the assemblies of New Hampshire, Vir-
ginia, New Jersey, and Connecticut, with cordial
letters from the speakers of the houses of Georgia,
South Carolina, and Rhode Island. The action of
Virginia is noteworthy. Not only was the course

1 MacDonald, Select Charters, 330-334.

188 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

taken by Massachusetts approved, but her example
was imitated in a circular letter to the other colonies
calling upon them to unite in her petition for a
redress of grievances.1

September 4, 1767, that brilliant but rash and
shallow politician, Charles Townshend, died, " leav-
ing to his successors the legacy of his disastrous
policy in America, but having achieved absolutely
nothing to justify the extraordinary reputation he
possessed among his contemporaries." 2 His place
as chancellor of the exchequer was taken by Lord
North, and a few months later Lord Hillsborough
was placed in charge of the new office of secretary
of state for the colonies. With these and some
other changes, the government came into the hands
of Bedford's friends, who were bent on enforcing the
supremacy of Parliament.

Royal officials in America represented the colonists
as aiming at independence, and their opposition
to the Townshend acts as riotous violations of the
law. In particular the new commissioners of cus-
toms wrote to the lords of the treasury that a de-
sign had been formed in Boston to force them, on
March 18, the anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp
Act, to renounce their commissions. " The governor
and magistracy," they asserted, "have not the least
authority or power in this place. We depend on
the favor of the mob for our protection. We cannot

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 213.
1 Lecky, England, III., 387.

1768]

TOWNSHEND ACTS

189

answer for our security for a day, much less will it
be in our power to carry the revenue laws into
effect." Moreover, they applied directly to the
commander at Halifax for an armed force.1

The circular letter of the Massachusetts house
came before Hillsborough April 15, 1768, while he
was angered by these false reports. At once he laid
it before the cabinet. On the 21st, in the king's
name he sent a letter to the governor of each of the
twelve other colonies, enclosing the circular, which
was described as "of a most dangerous and factious
tendency," likely "to promote an unwarrantable
combination, and to excite open opposition to par-
liament," ordering him to exert his "utmost in-
fluence to prevail upon the assembly" to take "no
notice of it, which will be treating it with the con-
tempt it deserves. If they give any countenance
to this seditious paper, it will be your duty to
prevent any proceedings upon it by an immedi-
ate prorogation or dissolution." The next day he
wrote to Bernard, commanding him to "require
of the house of representatives, in his majesty's
name, to rescind the resolution which gave birth to
the circular letter of the speaker, and to declare
their disapprobation of that rash and hasty pro-
ceeding. " 3 In effect, through these ill-advised orders

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 280; Memorial of
the Commissioners, March 28, 1768.

2 For Hillsborough's letters, see Almon, Prior Documents, 203-
205, 220.

VOL. vin. — 14

XQQ PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

the minister recklessly sent forth a challenge to
controversy whose acceptance a sensitive and self-
respecting people could hardly avoid. Indeed, from
this moment the march of events tends straight
towards the dissolution of the empire.

The royal requisition was placed by Bernard be-
fore the assembly June 21. The discussion, which
lasted nine days, was opened by James Otis. He
showed the absurdity of requiring the house to
rescind the resolution of a preceding assembly
which had already been executed. "When Lord
Hillsborough knows that we will not rescind our
acts," he exclaimed, " he should apply to parliament
to rescind theirs. Let Britain rescind her measures,
or the colonies are lost to her forever." 1 On June
30, in secret session, the house refused to rescind by
a vote of 92 to 17. At the same time, in a letter
to Hillsborough it "humbly" relies "on the royal
clemency, that to petition his Majesty will not be
deemed by him to be inconsistent with a respect
to the British constitution, as settled at the rev-
olution"; or that acquainting "their fellow sub-
jects ... of their having done so, ... would not
be discountenanced ... as a measure of an in-
flamatory nature." In reply to Bernard's message
the house defended its course and professed rev-
erence for both Parliament and the king.2

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 217; Bernard, Letters,
June 28, July 16.

2 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 147-150, 155, 156.

1768]

TOWNSHEND ACTS

191

The response of America to the letter of Hills-
borough requiring the assemblies to treat the Mas-
sachusetts circular with contempt was hardly what
he expected, but it was emphatic and harmonious.
Everywhere the new colonial policy excited indig-
nant remonstrance. "The people manifested their
approval of the doings of their representatives' by
votes of thanks, by joyful demonstrations, and re-
elections. County meetings and town meetings
called for union, for a continuance of correspondence,
and for a general congress — in some instances towns
pledging life and fortune in support of their Amer-
ican brethren." 1

Throughout the colonies, where any action was
taken, the assemblies refused to obey the demands
of the governors for enforcement of Hillsborough's
requisition. On the contrary, the action of Massa-
chusetts was commended; and sometimes petitions
to the king and remonstrances to the Commons were
drawn up. The reply of the assembly of Maryland
to the arrogant message of Governor Sharpe gives
typical expression to the popular feeling. "What
we shall do upon this occasion, or whether in con-
sequence of that Letter we shall do anything, it
is not our present business to communicate to your
Excellency; but of this be pleased to be assured, that
we cannot be prevailed on to take no notice of, or
treat with the least degree of contempt, a letter so
expressive of duty and loyalty to the sovereign, and

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 227, and n. 3.

192 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

so replete with just principles of liberty; and your
Excellency may depend that, whenever we appre-
hend the rights of the people to be affected, we shall
not fail boldly to assert and steadily endeavor to
maintain and support them, always remembering,
what we could wish never to forget, that by the
bill of rights it is declared, 'That it is the right of
the subject to petition the king, and all commit-
ments and prosecutions for such petitioning are
illegal."11

Thus the first result of the Townshend legislation
was the development of American public opinion.
The ultimate results, as will presently appear, were
first mob-violence and then revolution.

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 223.

CHAPTER XI

FIRST FRUITS OF THE TOWNSHEND ACTS

(i 768-1 77o)

IN response to the complaints of Bernard and the
commissioners, the ministry had resolved on the
despatch of a military force. June 8, 1 768, Gage was
commanded to send troops to Boston; the admir-
alty was directed to station several armed vessels in
the harbor; and orders were given that Castle
William should be occupied by the king's troops.
Before this the Romney, a fifty-gun ship, had been
anchored in the harbor. The captain began to
impress American seamen into his service, and one
of the impressed men was rescued by the people.
On the same day, June 10, John Hancock's sloop
Liberty arrived in Boston laden with wines from
Madeira. Attempting to inspect the cargo, the
collector was seized by the crew and locked on
board while contraband goods were landed and a
false entry made at the custom-house. After his
release the vessel was seized for the fraudulent
entry, and, to prevent a rescue, moored under
the guns of the Romney,
These events led to a riot in which the houses of

193

194 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

the controller and an inspector of customs were
damaged; and a boat belonging to the former was
burned on the common. The custom-house officers
fled to the Romney; and the next day, informing
Bernard that the "honor of the crown would be
hazarded by their return to Boston," they withdrew
to Castle William. On the 14th the town-meeting
presented an address to Bernard, alleging that
"menaces have been thrown out, fit only for bar-
barians"; and declaring that to "contend with the
parent state" is "the most shocking and dreadful
extremity; but tamely to relinquish the only secu-
rity we and our posterity retain of the enjoyment of
our lives and properties, without one struggle, is so
humiliating and base, that we cannot support the
reflection. We apprehend, sir, that it is at your
option, in your power, and we would hope in your
inclination, to prevent this distressed and justly
incensed people from effecting too much, and from
the shame and reproach of attempting too little."
Furthermore, they asked the governor to order the
removal of the Romney from the harbor.1 Bernard
gave a conciliatory answer, but declined to send
away the man-of-war as being a matter beyond his
authority.

There were not wanting other signs of the rise
of a dangerous spirit. Already in March a cargo
of wine was landed in the night and boldly carted
through the streets of Boston, "under a guard of

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 488.

1768] TROOPS IN BOSTON 195

thirty or forty stout fellows, armed with bludgeons ;
and, though it was notorious to the greatest part of
the town, no officer of the customs thought fit to
attempt a seizure; nor," adds Hutchinson, "is it
probable that he could have succeeded, if he had
attempted it." 1 Elsewhere similar events were
taking place. At Providence a custom-house officer
was tarred and feathered. In Newport a citizen
was killed in a quarrel with the midshipmen of a
war vessel ; and later a revenue-cutter was burned
at the dock.2

Worse things were about to follow. The Town-
shend acts and the unwise methods of enforcing
obedience were only beginning to bear their evil
fruit. The news of the riot in Boston incensed the
ministry. A memorial of the commissioners de-
clared that "there had been a long concerted and
extensive plan of resistance to the authority of
Great Britain; that the people of Boston had hast-
ened to acts of violence sooner than was intended ;
that nothing but the immediate exertion of military
power could prevent an open revolt of the town,
which would probably spread throughout the prov-
inces." 3 The suggestion was at once acted upon,
and two additional regiments were sent to Boston
from Ireland.

The immediate results were ominous of an im-

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 188.

2 Arnold, Rhode Island, II., 2S8, 294, 297.

3 Quoted from Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 297.

196 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

pending struggle. The reports that the army was
to be employed to punish Boston and coerce the dis-
obedient province caused great popular excitement.
September 12, 1768, a town-meeting assembled in
Faneuil Hall. It was resolved that " the inhabitants
of the town of Boston will, at the utmost peril of
their lives and fortunes, maintain and defend their
rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities"; and it
was declared that " money could not be levied, nor
a standing army be kept up in the province, but
by their own free consent." A day was named for
fasting and prayer, and threats of repelling force
by force were made. "There are your arms," said
Otis, moderator of the meeting, pointing to the
town's stock of muskets lying in boxes upon the
floor: ' ' when an attempt is made against your liber-
ties, they will be delivered." By a great majority
a resolution was adopted calling upon the inhabi-
tants to provide themselves with arms, " as there is
apprehension in the minds of many of an approach-
ing war with France." 1

Even more significant action was taken. Ber-
nard, while admitting that troops were expected,
had refused to grant the request of the meeting that
he should summon the assembly, to take such
measures "for the preservation of their valuable
civil and religious rights and privileges, now in
precarious situation, as they in their wisdom may
think proper." 2 The people now disclosed their

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 205. 1 Ibid., 204.

1768] TROOPS IN BOSTON

197

capacity for self-help, anticipating the method for se-
curing united action and party organization, which
soon was to be so effectively employed. Through
the selectmen a circular letter1 was sent out call-
ing a convention of all the towns of the province.
Delegates from ninety-six places responded. The
governor refused to receive their petition, which dis-
claimed any pretence to " authoritative or govern-
mental acts," and requested him to call the assembly.
The next day he sent word that " summoning such
a meeting was an offence of a very high nature";
admonished "them instantly to separate"; and as-
sured them that those who persisted in usurping the
king's sovereignty over the province ' 'would repent
of their rashness." 2 The convention defended itself
against the charge of illegal or criminal action, drew
up a statement of grievances, and adjourned after
a six days' session.

On the day when the convention adjourned
(September 28) two regiments of the line, with
artillery, arrived from Halifax. Three days later,
under the guns of eight men - of - war, they were
landed without opposition. "Each soldier having
received sixteen rounds of shot, they marched, with
drums beating, fifes playing, and colors flying,
through the streets, and by four in the afternoon
they paraded on Boston common." 3 At first one

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 492, 493.

2 Ibid., 210.

3 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 312.

198 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

regiment was encamped on the common; and the
other, after some altercation, found shelter in
Faneuil Hall and the Town House. The com-
mander demanded permanent quarters and supplies
under the billeting act; but, insisting on a strict
construction of the law, both the provincial council
and the selectmen refused to comply so long as
there was room for the troops in the barracks at
the castle. In the end, after much squabbling and
irritation, General Gage, who had come from New
York to settle the controversy, 11 found it necessary
to hire houses for the troops, which were obtained
with difficulty, and to procure articles required by
act of parliament at the charge of the crown.' ' 1

If the ministry was rash in appealing to military
force, the Parliament which met in December —
several months after it was known in England that
Massachusetts had refused to rescind — took a still
more hazardous step. Both houses censured the
assembly for its course, condemned the non-im-
portation agreements, and declared that the calling
of the convention by the selectmen of Boston
showed a design to set up independence. At the
same time an address2 was adopted expressing
"sincere satisfaction in the measures" taken by the
government, giving assurance of future support of
like measures, and suggesting that the names of the

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 215.

2 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 476-487; Cavendish,
Debates, I., 192-194.

1769] TROOPS IN BOSTON 199

more active agitators in America should be sent to
one of the secretaries of state. Parliament also
advised that an old statute of Henry VIII.,1 which
empowered the government to bring to England
for trial prisoners accused of treason outside the
kingdom, should be put in force, a measure which,
says the English historian Lecky, " added a new and
very serious item to the long list of colonial griev-
ances. ... By virtue of an obsolete law, passed in
one of the darkest periods of English history and
at a time when England possessed not a single
colony, any colonist who was designated by the
governor as a traitor might be carried three thousand
miles from his home, from his witnesses, from the
scene of his alleged crime." 2 In fact, we have now
reached the crisis of the impending revolution ; and
whatever the faults of American demagogues may
have been, the chief responsibility for the violence
which followed rests on the shoulders of the in-
fatuated king and his docile servants.

Once more the American people were put on the
defensive; but now they were challenged to protect
their dearest personal as well as their political rights.
In the press the misrepresentations of the placemen
were indignantly denounced. "It is enough to
make a man's bones crack," said a writer in a Boston
journal, "that, when the manly, fair, dispassionate
arguments of the colonists in support of their rights
and privileges remain totally unanswered, every

1 35 Henry VIII., chap. ii. 2 Lecky, England, III., 394, 395.

2oo PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

mushroom upstart and petty officer of the revenue
should cry out rebels and traitors."1

The first protest came from Virginia, which the
ministry had refrained from punishing, apparently
with the view of dividing the colonial opposition.
A new governor, Lord Botetourt — sensible, indus-
trious, and in the main just — had recently arrived
in the province. Among the burgesses at this time
were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas
Jefferson who sat for the first time. It was under-
stood that the governor desired that silence on po-
litical questions should be observed;2 but this was
by no means the purpose of the house. It adopted
a series of resolves protesting against the ministerial
policy, and in particular beseeching the king, "as
the father of his people however remote from the
seat of his empire, to quiet the minds of his loyal
subjects of this colony, and to avert from them those
dangers and miseries which will ensue from the
seizing and carrying beyond sea any person residing
in America, suspected of any crime whatsoever, to
be tried in any other manner than by the ancient
and long established course of proceeding." 3 These
resolutions the speaker was ordered to send to the
several assemblies on the continent, asking their
concurrence. The members of the house, when it
was dissolved by Lord Botetourt, retired to a private

1 Boston Gazette, June 26, 1769.

2 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 235.
8 MacDonald, Select Charters, 334, 335.

1769] TROOPS IN BOSTON

201

residence, where they signed a non - importation
agreement, probably drafted by George Mason.1
Like agreements were signed throughout the colo-
nies, and the Virginia resolves or similar declarations
were adopted by all the assemblies.

Events in Massachusetts presaged a struggle, for
the way of compromise was steadily closing. Various
incidents show how the popular anger was kept
alive. Under orders from Hillsborough, evidence
was being collected by the governor and other
crown officers to enable them to send offenders to
England for trial under the act of Henry VIII.
Affidavits against Samuel Adams, "sworn to be-
fore Hutchinson, were sent to England, to prove
him fit to be transported." 2 This did not increase
Bernard's popularity; and the publication in April,
1769, of some of his letters to the ministry in the
preceding November and December not only " caused
an inconceivable alienation" between him and the
council, "but enraged a great part of the province,
who considered the cause of the council as their
own. 3

A long letter signed by eleven members of the
council was sent to Hillsborough, charging the
governor with "want of candor, with indecent,
illiberal, and most abusive treatment of them," with

1 Washington, Works (Ford's ed.), II., 367, n.\ Burk, Hist, of
Virginia., III., 345-

2 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 332.

8 Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, III., 226.

202 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

"aiming at exorbitant and uncontrollable power,
with a design to represent things in the worst light,
with unmanly dissimulation, and with untruth." 1
A second letter was sent, criticising Bernard for
recommending, contrary to the charter, that a
council be appointed by royal mandamus, and ac-
cusing him of gross misrepresentations.2

Later the house petitioned for his recall, and in
July he went to England, leaving the government
in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson.

Quartering troops in Boston and surrounding the
town with an armed fleet did not prove an effective
means of reconciliation; but more than two years
passed away without riot or serious collision. The
soldiers had nothing to do; for in the absence of
martial law they could only be employed on call of
a civil magistrate. Yet they were hated and ostra-
cized by the people, and, under the circumstances,
it is not at all surprising that their "simple pres-
ence" was "treated as an intolerable grievance. " 3
Unquestionably the officers and the men found
themselves in a trying position; and on the whole
they acted with prudence and self-control. They
were often abused and insulted, scurrilous attacks
upon them were made in the newspapers, and fre-
quent affrays between the soldiers and townsmen
took place.

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, III., 228.

2 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 165,

3 Lecky, England, III., 393.

1 77°] TROOPS IN BOSTON

203

" Little matters, being novelties, soon caused great
uneasiness. Though the people had been used to
answer to the call of the town watch in the night,
yet they did not like to answer to the frequent calls
of the centinels posted at the barracks, and at the
gates of the principal officers . . . ; and either a re-
fusal to answer, or an answer accompanied with
irritating language, endangered the peace of the
town" ; so the officers "relaxed the rigid rules of the
army; and, at most places, no challenge was made."
Moreover, the noise of fifes and drums on Sunday
drew forth a petition from the selectmen asking the
general to "dispense with the band." 1 During the
winter of 1769 feeling became more tense. The two
regiments, says Hutchinson, " were a continual eye-
sore to the inhabitants," and affrays became more
frequent.

The long-delayed collision approached on March 2,
1770, when a fight took place between some rope-
makers and soldiers of the 29th Regiment, elicit-
ing a letter of complaint from the commander
to the lieutenant-governor. March 5 occurred a
tragedy which had much influence in hastening the
Revolution. It was an evening of unusual excite-
ment; according to Hutchinson the people were
called into the streets by a false alarm of fire, and
bands of soldiers were running about. Whether
the fracas of the 2d had anything to do with what
followed is not clear. A sentinel at the custom-

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, III., 224, 270 et seq.

204 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1770

house was insulted and pelted by the crowd. Ac-
cording to some accounts he had struck a boy
earlier in the evening. At his call a corporal and a
squad of six men, commanded by Captain Preston,
came to his aid. These were surrounded by fifty
or sixty men and boys, some of them carrying
bludgeons, shouting, "Cowardly rascals, lobsters,
bloody-backs," and daring them to shoot. A
soldier, hit by a club, fired, killing a mulatto named
Crispus Attucks. At once the other soldiers dis-
charged their muskets into the mob. Including
Attucks, three persons were killed, two mortally
wounded, and six injured. It is alleged that Pres-
ton gave the word to fire, but the fact is not clearly
established.

As the news spread the wildest excitement pre-
vailed in the town. Drums were beaten and the
church-bells rung. The people rushed into the
streets, some with arms in their hands. Captain
Preston and the soldiers were arrested and committed
to prison. The next day, under the leadership of
Samuel Adams,1 the town-meeting demanded that
both regiments should be sent away to the castle.
After some parley, as a bloody contest seemed
imminent, Hutchinson consented to give the order.
Seven months later the soldiers were tried before a
Boston jury, John Adams2 and Josiah Quincy ap-

1 Frothingham, " Sam. Adams' Regiments," in Atlantic Monthly,
June and August, 1862, November, 1863.

2 Adams, Works, L, 97-114, II., 229-233.

x77o] TROOPS IN BOSTON

205

pearing as their counsel. All were acquitted, save
two, and these were lightly punished for man-
slaughter.

Such was the "Boston Massacre" which patriotic
writers have represented as the first blood-offering
for independence ; and of a truth the historian who
would understand the American Revolution will not
belittle its significance. It may be true that im-
mediately the townsmen were far more guilty than
the soldiers. The real responsibility rests upon the
statesmen who created the conditions rendering
such a result almost inevitable. In that fact lies
the meaning of the " massacre,' ' and the meaning
is very grave.

VOL. VIII. — 15

CHAPTER XII

THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPATE AND THE REVO-

1 marks the crisis in a long and bitter con-
troversy which rightly belongs to the preliminaries
of the American Revolution. According toMellen
Chamberlain, whose view in part agrees with that
of some other writers,1 the attempt to set up the
Anglican episcopal system in the colonies must be
counted among the chief causes of their separation
from the parent state. He cites2 as principal au-
thorities John Adams and Jonathan Boucher. Who
"will believe," wrote Adams in 1815, "that the
apprehension of Episcopacy contributed fifty years
ago, as much as any other cause, to arouse the at-
tention, not only of the inquiring mind, but of the
common people, and urge them to close thinking
on the constitutional authority of parliament over

Chamberlain, John Adams, 13, 17; Perry, Am. Episcopal
Church, I., 394 et seq., 425. Cf. Brooks Adams, Emancipation
of Mass., 314 et seq.

2 Chamberlain, John Adams, 30 et seq.

206

LUTION

(1638-1775)

Townshend acts, 176 7- 1770,

1775] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 207

the colonies? This nevertheless was a fact as
certain as any in the history of North America.
The objection was not merely to the office of a
bishop, though even that was dreaded, but to the
authority of parliament, on which it must be
founded " ; for "if parliament can erect dioceses and
appoint bishops, they may introduce the whole
hierarchy, establish tithes, forbid marriages and
funerals, establish religions, forbid dissenters." 1

Similarly in 1797 Boucher insisted that it was then
"indisputable" that the opposition to bishops was
connected "with that still more serious one after-
wards set up against civil government"; although
he admits that in Virginia the fact " was not indeed
generally apparent at the time." This controversy,
he adds, was "clearly one great cause that led to
the revolution." 2

Here, then, if this theory be true, is a fact, much
neglected by the general historian, which ought to
receive due emphasis in any account of the origin of
the American nation. Fortunately the researches
of several American scholars, notably those of Dr.
Cross, have put us in a position to follow throughout
their entire course the efforts to establish bishops in
the colonies, and to appreciate at something near its
real value the significance of those efforts in their
relation to the civil policy of Great Britain.

1 Adams, Works, X., 185, 288; Chamberlain, John Adams,
25, n.

? poucher, View' of the Cguses of the Am. Rev., 159^

208 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1638

During the colonial era the church of England
was established by law in Virginia, the Carolinas,
Georgia, and Maryland. Elsewhere, save in three
counties of New York, it had no legal existence, al-
though here and there single congregations were
planted. In New England particularly there was a
traditional antipathy to bishops. Since the Hamp-
den Court conference episcopal despotism was there
closely associated with the absolutism of the Stuarts.
The independent churches had been founded in
America by those who had fled from episcopal
tyranny in the old home. Episcopacy and mon-
archy were associated in the Puritan mind ; and with
the spread of democratic ideas any attempt to set
up bishops, however restricted in their authority and
functions, was sure to be looked upon with a jeal-
ous eye. Indeed, in Virginia, where the Anglican
church was strongest, there was, mainly on secular
grounds, as little inclination as in New England to
welcome the institution of a hierarchy.1

Moreover, the earliest attempt to create an Amer-
ican episcopate was not auspicious. It came as a
part of Laud's scheme for forcing conformity to the
Anglican church upon the English settlers through-
out the world.2 In 1638, according to Heylyn,
"to prevent such mischiefs," as might ensue from
the "receptacle" of " schismatical persons" in New
England, Laud resolved "to send a bishop over to

1 Greene, Provincial America {Am. Nation, VI.), chap. vi.

2 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 7.

1660] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 209

them, for their better government, and back him
with some Force to compel, if he were not otherwise
able to persuade Obedience. But this Design was
strangled in the first Conception, by the violent
breakings out of the Troubles in Scotland." 1 These
troubles were not surmounted before the meeting
of the Long Parliament which in 1645 sent Laud
to the scaffold.

Thus through the primate the earliest attempt
to establish the Anglican system in the colonies
came from the government. From the same source
during the following century arose several other
projects,2 although at no time did the appointment
of bishops in America become an essential part of
England's colonial policy. At most these isolated
schemes, formed directly or indirectly under the
auspices of the state, may have served to nourish
the traditional dread of an Anglican hierarchy.
In Massachusetts, especially, the jealousy of the
rival Congregational establishment, intolerant and
aggressive, was easily excited. Yet the strife re-
garding this subject, which finally became a cause of
revolution, came immediately from another source.
It arose mainly from the zeal of the American
episcopal clergy and the unwise efforts of certain
English prelates to establish bishops in the colonies,
under influence of the well-meant appeals of the
Society for Propagating the Gospel.

1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 21, n. 2; Heylyn, Cyprianus An-
glicus,347. 2 Perry, Hist. Colls., I., 160, 161,395-399,536-542.

2io PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1660

Previous to the Restoration a tradition had grown
up that the bishop of London ought by preference
to be consulted regarding the affairs of the English
churches in America. But it has been pretty clear-
ly demonstrated that even his restricted suffragan
authority in the colonies had no legal sanction until
the time of Henry Compton, who was translated
to the see of London in 1675.1 When a formal
inquiry3 had disclosed this fact, at Compton's in-
stance two new provisions were henceforth inserted
in the instructions to the royal governors. Gov-
ernor Culpepper, of Virginia, who was first so in-
structed, is required to see that the Book of Com-
mon Prayer is "read each Sunday and Holy Day,"
and the "Blessed Sacrament administered accord-
ing to the rules of the Church of England"; while
hereafter no minister may be preferred to any
benefice in the colony without a certificate from the
bishop of London "of his being conformable" to
the doctrine of that church.3

In various ways Compton strove to increase his
diocesan authority in the colonies. From 1685
onward, at his instance, the governors were com-
manded to "give all countenance and encourag-
ml in the exercise" of the jurisdiction of the bishop
of London, "excepting only the Collating to Bene-

' 1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 1-2$.

» Ibid., is, n. 3, 25; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 36a;
Cat. of State Pap., Col., 167 5-1676, 337, 338.

3 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 362.

1748] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 211

fices, granting licenses for Marriages, and Probate
of Wills," which are reserved to the governor and
the "Commander in Chief for the time being";
while henceforward no school-masters were to be
"permitted to come from England and to keep
school" in the province "without the license of the
said Bishop." 1 With equal zeal he sought to im-
prove the spiritual conditions of the colonial clergy.

To this end Compton "instituted the practice of
appointing commissaries who from this time until
the middle of the eighteenth century continued to
exercise delegated authority in the colonies"; and
with the aid of Archbishop Tennison, in 1701, he
procured the incorporation of the Societv for
Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The
work begun by Compton was carried further by
Gibson (17 23-1 748), who received a royal com-
mission authorizing him or his commissaries to hold
spiritual courts.2 In South Carolina, at least, such
tribunals were vigorously employed for correcting
the morals and irregularities of the clergy.3

Meanwhile, from its first organization the Society
for Propagating the Gospel or its adherents had been
clamoring for the institution of bishops in America.
To this end letters, petitions, and memorials were
sent to England, especially by missionaries in the

1 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VII., 363 (instructions to the
governor of Jamaica). Cf. Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 30.

2 For the patent or commission, see N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col.
Hist., V., 849-854. Cf. Baldwin, Jurisdiction of the Bishop of
London, 190. 3 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 80-87.

212 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1714

middle and the northern colonies;1 for the estab-
lished clergy of Virginia and the south were too
well satisfied with the liberty which they enjoyed
to invite the interference of a resident hierarchy.
These efforts were prompted mainly by spiritual
motives, although they eventually gave rise to bitter
political strife. Bishops were needed, it was urged,
for the purpose of ordination, confirmation, and a
more rigorous discipline of the clergy. In England
the zeal of the society was almost successful. Its
scheme for an American episcopate won the sanc-
tion of Queen Anne, and a "bill was drafted and
about to be introduced into parliament, when her
Majesty's death put a stop to further proceedings." 2
The new king, George L, looked coldly upon the
project, and Sir Robert Walpole was too wise to
try so dangerous an experiment. For a quarter of a
century the agitation waned ; but at the very end of
Walpole's ministry it was revived in a significant
way by a sermon preached before the society by
Thomas Seeker, bishop of Oxford. His words are
ominous of the growing political trend of this dis-
cussion. "Such an establishment,' ' he says, would
not "encroach at all on the present rights of the
Civil Government in our Colonies"; nor would it
endanger their "dependence" as "some persons
profess to apprehend . . ., who would make no
manner of scruple about doing other Things much

1 Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, I., 396 et seq.

* Cross, Anglican Episcopate, ioi, citing contemporaries.

i74i] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 213

more likely to destroy it ; who are not terrified in the
least that such numbers there reject the Episcopal
Order entirely ; nor would perhaps be greatly alarm-
ed, were there ever so many to reject Religion itself:
though evidently in Proportion as either is thrown
off, all Dependence produced by it ceases of course." 1
Equally enlightening is the reply of the Reverend
Andrew Eliot, which discloses a suspicion of the
good faith of the advocates of a colonial episcopate
and a dread of the encroachments of the hierarchy
were it once set up. "If a prelate is introduced,
some way must be found out for his support. Every
art will be used to prevail with our assemblies to
lay a tax ; and who can assure us, that they will
never be cajoled into a compliance. ... If the pro-
vincial assemblies should refuse to tax the in-
habitants for the support of a bishop, the whole
strength of the Church of England will be united
to procure an act of parliament" to tax the colonies
for this purpose. "If this is obtained, no colony
can expect an exemption," not even New England;
for "we have been told, that 'when any part of the
English nation spread abroad into colonies, as they
continued a part of ijie nation, the law obliged them
equally to the church of England, and to the
Christian religion.' " 2

1 Society's Abstracts, 27-29, quoted by Cross, Anglican
Episcopate, 109, n. 2.

2 Eliot, Remarks on the Bishop of Oxford's Sermon (Mass.
Hist. Soc., Collections, 2d series, II., 209, 210).

214 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1748

From this time onward the political aspects of the
question became more and more pronounced. In
its next phase the bishop of London took the- lead.
From 1748 to 1761 that see was held by Thomas
Sherlock, who strove without ceasing to secure the
instalment of bishops in America. He refused to
receive a royal patent defining his colonial jurisdic-
tion, and declined so far as practicable to exercise
any diocesan authority in the colonies. Apparently
it was his deliberate policy to force the Episcopalians
in America " to demand an episcopate of their own." 1
His memorial relating to " Ecclesiastical Govern-
ment in his Majesty's Dominions in America' ■ failed
to receive the approval of the Privy Council, and one
of its members, Horatio Walpole, gave him solemn
warning of the bitter feeling which the presentation
of such a scheme would arouse. The dissenters
at home who "are generally well - affected, & in-
deed necessary supporters to ye present establish-
ment in state" will "be loud in their discourses and
writings upon this intended innovation in America,
and those in ye Colonies will be exasperated &
animated to make warm representations against it
to ye Government here, as a design to establish
Ecclesiastical power in its full extent among them
by Degrees." 2

Walpole 's letter was answered by Seeker of Ox-

1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 113 et seq.

2 Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, I., 409; Walpole, in Cross,
Anglican Episcopate, 324-330.

1765] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 215

ford; and about the same time Joseph Butler,
bishop of Durham, came to Sherlock's support. In
1750 he drew up a plan defining the principles on
which an American episcopate should be set up.
It is very moderate and apologetic in tone. Coercive
authority over the laity is disclaimed; the main-
tenance of bishops is "not to be at the charge
of the colonies"; and no "bishops are intended
to be settled in places where the government is left
in the hands of dissenters." Only spiritual mo-
tives are disclosed, although the manifest anxiety
to placate opposition is highly enlightening.1

Still more significant was the so-called "May hew
Controversy," which took place during Grenville's
administration, 1 763-1 765. In a pamphlet pub-
lished in 1763, Jonathan May hew, of Boston, at-
tempted to show that the Society for Propagating
the Gospel, neglectful of the spiritual purposes of its
creation, had long had "a formal design to root out
Presbyterianism," and to set up episcopacy through-
out the colonies.2 Among the replies called out by
May hew 's pamphlet was one by Seeker, now arch-
bishop of Canterbury, who claimed that as a matter
of constitutional right the Episcopalians in the
colonies were entitled to the ministrations of bishops ;
that, "in a land where there is any pretence of
toleration," the members of the church of Eng-

1 Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, L, 408.

2 Mayhew, Observations, 103; Perry, Am. Episcopal Church,
I., 410 et seq.

216 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

land "should have that privilege in full — should
have bishops and other necessary officers." Ac-
cordingly he presented " a plan of what the proposed
bishop would be allowed to do and what not to do,
a plan which corresponds in its essentials to that
which Bishop Butler had drawn up in 1750/' 1

In his answer, Mayhew insisted that if bishops
were once introduced they would hardly be content
without any of the temporal "power and grandeur"
enjoyed by their brethren in England ; and that " the
number of Episcopalians might increase to such an
extent as to attain a majority in the legislatures,
and thereby secure, perhaps, not only an establish-
ment of the Church of England, but also taxes for
the support of bishops, test acts, ecclesiastical
courts, and what not." 2 Little that was new in
argument was advanced by either side in this dis-
cussion; but under influence of the sensitiveness
created by the political contest of the hour old
arguments acquired new meaning; and the con-
troversy undoubtedly tended to draw men closer
together in the rising revolutionary parties. Ac-
cording to John Adams, at this time the supposed
design to set up an American episcopate "spread
an universal alarm against the authority of parlia-
ment," by virtue of which alone it could be ac-
complished.3

1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 146, 151.

2 Mayhew, Remarks, 60 et seq., summarized in Cross, Anglican
Episcopate, 154-156 8 Adams, Works, X., 288.

i77i] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 217

The crisis in the long struggle for bishops in the
colonies was reached in the pamphlet war waged
between Thomas Bradbury Chandler and Charles
Chauncy,1 backed by their respective allies, in the
years 1767-1771, the period of political strife caused
by the measures of Charles Townshend. In 1767
the contest was opened by Chandler in his Appeal
to the Public in Behalf of the Church of England in
America, a paper prepared under the sanction of
a convention of the Episcopalians of New York and
New Jersey. From the religious point of view he pre-
sented a powerful argument in favor of bishops, and
sketched a plan similar in character to the schemes
of Butler and Seeker already mentioned. Dis-
claiming all political purpose, he rejected as utterly
groundless the assertions of some "London papers
at the time of the Stamp Act agitation, to the
effect that the discontent and uneasiness manifested
by the colonists on that occasion were due in a great
measure to the fear that bishops would be settled
among them." That discontent he declared was
" wholly due to what the colonists regarded as
'an unconstitutional oppressive act.1112

Yet it is to be feared that Chandler was not quite
candid in his profession of purely spiritual motives;
and that he kept back political reasons which might
have justified the colonial dread of the hierarchy. In

1 Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, I., 414 et seq.
J Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 170, quoting Chandler, Appeal.
Cf. Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, I., 416.

218 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

his letter transmitting a copy of his book to the
bishop of London he admits, ''There are some Facts
and Reasons, which could not be prudently men-
tioned in a Work of this Nature, as the least Intima-
tion of them would be of ill Consequence in this
irritable Age and Country: but were they known,
they would have a far greater Tendency to engage
such of our Superiors, if there be any such as are
governed by Political motives, to espouse the Cause
of the Church of England in America, than any
contained in the Pamphlet. But I must content
myself with having proposed those only which
could be mentioned safely, and leave the event to
Divine Providence."1

In his elaborate answer, Chauncy, besides pre-
senting the usual arguments in opposition, added
the forcible objection to the scheme for episcopizing
the colonies, that it was supported "almost wholly
by the clergy, and by the laity scarcely at all." It
" is to me as well as to many I have conversed with
upon this head, Episcopalians among others, very
questionable, whether, if the members of the Church
of England, in these northern Colonies, were to give
in their votes, and to do it without previous Clerical
influence, they would be found to be on the side of
an American Episcopate." 2 Moreover, it is highly
probable that his statement would have been as true
of the southern as of the northern provinces.

1 Fulham MSS., quoted by Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 165,
j66, 2 Chauncy, Appeal Answered, 135.

i77i] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 219

One other significant passage in Chauncy's pam-
phlet deserves mention. More boldly than any of
his predecessors he questioned the good faith of the
advocates of an American episcopate, and accused
them of suppressing their real motives. "They
have much more in design than they have been
pleased to declare," he says. "We are as fully
persuaded as if they had openly said it, that
they have in view nothing short of a complete
church hierarchy, after the pattern of that
at home, with like officers, in all their various
degrees of dignity, with a like large revenue for
their grand support, and with the allowance of
no other privilege to dissenters but that of a
bare toleration." 1

For our present purpose this remarkable pam-
phlet controversy need not be further dwelt upon.
But the fact that it was accompanied by an acri-
monious newspaper war,2 in which such men as
William Livingston, John Dickinson, and William
Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, took
part, seems to prove that "the episcopal question, in
its political aspect, had become important in the
minds of the people." The contest had its in-
fluence on the further development of the revolu-
tionary parties. In the northern colonies the Puri-
tans, who believed in forcible resistance to the
obnoxious measures of the British government, drew

1 Chauncy, Appeal Answered, 201; Cross, Anglican Episco-
pate, 175. 2 Ibid., 195-214.

2 20 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

apart from the Episcopalians, who generally favored
a policy of "non-resistance and passive obedience."
In "view of these facts," Cross is convinced, "it
is at least a tenable hypothesis that the bitterness
of the controversy brought out so sharply the latent
hostility between Episcopalian and Puritan, that
many churchmen who might otherwise have taken
the side of their country were, by the force of their
injured religious convictions, driven over to the
royalist ranks." 1

To what extent, then, may the agitation for an
American episcopate be regarded as a cause of the
Revolution ? In answering this question it is high-
ly important to consider that Virginia, where the
church of England was established, was opposed
to the introduction of bishops. The only serious
attempt by some of the clergy to bring that to pass
was severely rebuked by the house of burgesses,
because it would cause "much disturbance, great
anxiety, and apprehension . . . among his Majesty's
faithful American subjects."2 Thus the Virginian
house placed itself beside that of Massachusetts, which
three years before (1768), in a letter drafted by
Samuel Adams, had ordered its agent in London
to "strenuously oppose" the "establishment of a
Protestant episcopate in America." 3 Furthermore,

1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 214.

' Perry, Am. Episcopal Church, I., 419; Baldwin, Jurisdiction
of the Bishop of London, 210; Hawks, Contributions, I., 126 et seq.

3 Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, I., 157. Cf. Brooks Adams,
Emancipation of Mass., 347 et seq.

1771] EPISCOPACY AND REVOLUTION 221

at no time after the reign of Anne was the agitation
for episcopizing the colonies favored by the im-
perial government.

As a cause of the Revolution, therefore, it can-
not be ranked with the acts of trade, the exercise of
the royal prerogative, or the revenue laws. Yet it
was an important factor in moulding revolutionary
opinion and differentiating revolutionary parties.
One may safely accept the judgment of the scholar
who has most thoroughly examined the problem,
that "the strained relations which heralded the
War of Independence strengthened the opposition
to episcopacy, rather than that religious differences
were a prime moving cause of political alienation ":
that religious controversies "contributed, in com-
bination with other causes, to embitter the mind
of the patriots, and thus to accelerate the impending
crisis. 1

1 Cross, Anglican Episcopate, 271.

VOL. VIII. — 16

CHAPTER XIII

INSTITUTIONAL BEGINNINGS OF THE WEST

HILE the orders of Hillsborough were drawing

V Y the colonies together in common opposition
to the king and Parliament, the western pioneers
of North Carolina were striving to redress the shame-
ful abuses in the civil service which Tryon and the
assembly had refused to remedy. The war of the
Regulation has no direct connection with the Rev-
olution.. It was neither religious nor political in
character. It was essentially a peasants' rising on
account of economic wrongs. Hermon Husband
sympathized deeply with the aggrieved people, and
by wise methods did what he could to relieve them
from oppression ; but, contrary to the popular view,
he was rather a peace-maker than a leader of rebellion.

There was little self - government in the colony.
Power was centralized in the hands of the governor
and a few leaders. So in the western counties the
spoils of office were shared by corrupt " rings."
The "grievances of the Regulators were excessive
taxes, dishonest sheriffs, and extortionate fees." 1

1 Bassett, Regulators of N. C, 142, 143, 150. Cf. Raper,
North Carolina, 61-64, 66-68, passim.

(I768-I77S)

222

THE WEST

223

Taxes were apportioned according to polls, every
adult white man and every black man or woman
being rated as a taxable. Thus relatively the bur-
den bore more heavily upon the poor than upon
the rich. Money was so scarce that often the people
were unable to pay the tax when demanded without
borrowing the sum needed from the local broker.
The sheriff as tax-collector usually refused to grant
the delay necessary for this purpose, but proceeded
at once to distrain on the delinquent's property,
exacting a fee for the service. The property seized
was then carried to Hillsborough and sold — some-
times to a friend of the officer — "for much less
than its value. The Regulators charged that offi-
cers played into each other's hands for this pur-
pose, and there were men in Hillsborough who
made large sums by dealing in such business."1
Moreover, the sheriffs were often dishonest. In
1767 even Governor Tryon declared that because
of the "illjudged lenity" of the treasurers these
officials " have embezzled more than one-half of the
public money ordered to be raised and collected by
them"; and in 1770 an official report shows that
they were in arrears to the amount of more than
£66,000, counting some £15,000 due for that year.2
The fee system was scandalously abused. Fees
of lawyers and officials were established by law;

1 Bassett, Regulators of N. C, 151. Cf. N. C. Col. Records,
VII., 771-782. 1

2 N. C. Col. Records, VII., 497, 984, VIII., 105, 278-281.

224 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

but in spirit the law was violated by ingeniously
resolving a " service for which a fixed fee was due
into two or more services," and demanding the
fee for each. The people believed that the courts
connived at the extortion, and that by collusion
cases were postponed in order to increase the costs.

Furthermore, the people of the back country suf-
fered greatly from the lack of courts. They de-
manded that the counties should be subdivided so
that the number of county courts might be in-
creased. Often they had to travel from thirty
to sixty miles to attend the sessions. Judicial
business was so much behind that in April, 1766,
Tryon wrote that there were about one thousand
cases on the docket of Halifax superior court, and
no civil causes had been tried in any court in the
province since November.1

Tryon and the eastern members of the assembly
sympathized with the placemen and declined to
grant the needed reforms. At length the people
resolved to take the law into their own hands.
Outbreaks of mob- violence took place in 1765; in
some places taxes were refused in 1766; and in that
year the first organized effort to bring the officials
to account was made. The larger movement, known
as the Regulation, extended from 1768 to May, 1771,
when it was mercilessly put down in the battle of the
Alamance. In the next year, despairing of gaining

1 N. C. Col. Records, VII., 200, 201; Bassett, Regulators of
N. C, 152-154.

1775]

THE WEST

225

justice, a large number of pioneers crossed the
mountains to carve out new homes in the wilder-
ness of Tennessee.

The Regulation thus has its place in the ex-
pansion of the nation ; but it is not the beginning of
the Revolution. Among the leaders in the war for
independence were the very men who commanded
the militia against the Regulators, while the ma-
jority of the latter were Tories. Still, that the up-
rising took place at all is largely due to the policy
of Try on; and in another way it influenced the
Revolution. "The struggle was a grand object
lesson to the whole country. It set the people to
thinking of armed resistance. Failure as it was, it
showed how weak the British army would be in a
hostile country. It taught the North Carolina
troops who served with Tryon to appreciate the
feelings of such an army. The two campaigns of
Tryon developed the military organization of the
province. When the Revolution began, it was only
necessary that this organization should be put in
motion." 1

Before the arrival of the Regulators from North
Carolina, events of vast import for the future nation
were taking place beyond the Alleghanies. There,
in the valleys of the Kentucky and the Tennessee,
American institutions were being planted, the foun-
dations of new states were being laid. In the face
of perils and hardships not less appalling than those

IBassett, Regulators of N. C, 211.

226 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1738

endured by their ancestors at Jamestown and
Plymouth, bold pioneers were forming " associations "
for self-government, not less significant than the
Mayflower compact. Long before the French and
Indian War cheap arable lands were becoming scarce
east of the mountains; and the westward march of
settlement had already passed beyond the Blue
Ridge to the rich valley of the Shenandoah. As
early as 1738 the Virginia assembly had created
Augusta County, bounded on the east by the Blue
Ridge, and west and northwest by ' 'the utmost
limits of Virginia." 1

Gradually interest was awakened in the opening
of the West to colonization. Between the Monon-
gahela and the Kanawha were located the lands
granted to the Ohio Company in 1749; 2 and from
this time onward numerous schemes for western
settlement were formed. Franklin's plan of union
in 1754 would have wisely placed general control
of Indian affairs in the hands of the governor and
council. They were to ' ' make all purchases from
Indians, for the crown, of lands not now within the
bounds of particular colonies, or that shall not be
within their bounds when some of them are reduced
to more convenient dimensions." 3

Not long after the Albany convention Franklin

1 Alden, New Governments, 1; Hening, Statutes, V., 79; Brown,
in Filson Club, Publications, VI., 23.

2 Dinwiddie Papers, I., 17, n. 23.

8 Thwaites, France in America {Am. Nation, VII.) , chap. x.

1755]

THE WEST

227

prepared a project for planting two colonies under
charters from the crown. These were to have
"liberal privileges and powers of government"; for
"extraordinary privileges and liberties, with lands
on easy terms, are strong inducements to people to
hazard their persons and fortunes in settling new
countries." 1 These colonies were to be seated, one
on the Scioto, and the other in what is now north-
western Pennsylvania and northeastern Ohio.2 In
1756 Pownall communicated Franklin's scheme to
the duke of Cumberland, together with a plan of his
own for two barrier colonies, to protect Virginia
and New England respectively. He informed the
duke that the " English settlements, as they are at
present circumstanced, are absolutely at a stand;
they are settled up to the mountains, and in the
mountains there is nowhere together, land sufficient
for a settlement large enough to subsist by itself
and to defend itself, and preserve a communication
with the present settlements. If the English would
advance one step further, or cover themselves where
they are, it must be at once, by one large step
over the mountains, with a numerous and military
colony." 3

In 1755 Samuel Hazard, a Philadelphia merchant,
proposed to get a grant of land for "an ample
colony," and to apply to the king for a charter to

franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), II., 474.

2 Alden, New Governments, 4.

3 Pownall, Administration, App., 47, 48.

228 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1755

erect the " territory into a separate government."
The boundaries of this ample colony, as described,
"embraced all of the Ohio, and a large part of the
Mississippi valleys." 1 Apparently it was expected
that the colonists would be mainly Presbyterians.
"Only Protestants believing in the divine authority
of the Old and New Testaments and the Trinity of
the Godhead, and with lives and conversations free
from immorality and profaneness, could hold office.
Roman Catholics were debarred from holding land
or having arms or ammunition in their possession,
'nor shall any Mass Houses or Popish Chappels be
allowed in the Province.' " It is well that a plan for
the government of the West, whose intolerance con-
trasts so unfavorably with the broad liberalism of
the Ordinance of 1787, was never carried through;
for with its author's death in 1758 it drops out of
sight.

Another of the various schemes of this period,
never realized, deserves a passing notice. At the
close of the French and Indian War an Edinburgh
pamphlet recommended that "Virginia, Maryland,
and Pennsylvania be terminated by a bound to be
fixed thus: From Lake Erie, up the river Miamis
[Maumee] to the Carrying-place, from thence down
the river Waback to where it runs into the Ohio, and
from thence down the Ohio to the Forks of the
Mississippi." Furthermore, the writer of the pam-

1 Force, Am. Archives, 4th series, I., 861-867; Gist, Journals,
261; Alden, New Governments, 7-9.

1763]

THE WEST

229

phlet suggested that "the country betwixt the
fresh-water Lakes, extending northwest from this
proposed bound, be formed into a new Colony,
which might be called Charlotiana, in honor of
Her Majesty, our present most excellent Queen. "
The colony, it was hoped, would serve as a check
to the Indian insurrections then in progress.1

The king's proclamation of 1763 forbade the
colonial governors "to grant warrant of survey, or
pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or
sources of any of the rivers which fall into the
Atlantic Ocean from the west or northwest," all
such territory being "for the present" reserved to
the royal "sovereignty" for the use of the Indians.
Without the king's "special leave and licence," un-
der severe penalty private persons were prohibited
from purchasing or settling on any of the lands so
reserved ; but " if at any time any of the said Indians
should be inclined to dispose of the said lands," the
same were to be purchased in the king's name, at a
public meeting of the Indians, by the governor or
commander-in-chief of the colony in which they
shall lie.2

In 1772 the Earl of Hillsborough declared that
the "two capital objects" of the proclamation were
to confine the colonies to territory where they could

1 Alden, New Governments, 12-14, citing Expediency of Securing
Our American Colonies.

2 Text in Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 374-379; or
MacDonald, Select Charters, 267.

230 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

be kept "in a due subjection to, and dependence
upon, the mother country, " and where they would
be "within the reach of the trade and commerce"
of Great Britain. But there seems to be no good
reason to doubt that it was really designed in good
faith as a temporary expedient for securing the
rights and quieting the minds of the Indians until
a permanent arrangement should be made by
treaty. Such was the view of Franklin and Wash-
ington; while Grenville "always admitted, that the
design of it was totally accomplished, so soon as
the country was purchased from the natives." 1
The proclamation dealt with the Indian problem
in precisely the same spirit as did Franklin's
plan of union in 1754; and that there was no
intention of placing a permanent restraint on
westward settlement is clearly revealed by later
events.

The very next year an important step was taken
towards opening the western lands for settlement.
At the close of Pontiac's war in 1 764, Bouquet forced
a treaty of peace upon the Indians of the Ohio
Valley, whose most important result was to aid in
withdrawing the Indians from the territory south
of the Ohio, thus preparing the way for the future
settlement of Kentucky and Tennessee. "Very
soon after Bouquet's conference, the last of the

1 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 303, 304, 339, 340;
Alden, New Governments, 42-48; Coffin, Province of Quebec,
398-431; Butterfield, Washington-Crawford Letters, 3.

1

1769] THE WEST 231

Shawnees who lingered in that country crossed the
Ohio."1

Only two years after the treaty a scheme was
under consideration for planting three new colonies
in the West. One was to be seated at Detroit,
another on the lower Ohio, and a third in the Illinois
country. Although the project was favored by
Franklin and supported by Lord Shelburne, then
secretary of state for the southern or colonial de-
partment, it was finally abandoned by the ministry
in 1 7 68. 2 In that same year, at the treaty of Fort
Stanwix, the Six Nations ceded to the crown all of
their claims to land south of the Ohio as far as the
Tennessee. This treaty was in strict harmony
with the policy inaugurated by the proclamation of
1763, and the way was now open for settlement
under the royal sanction.

Accordingly, the next project for a western colony
was well received. In June, 1769, the first step was
taken in what is known as the Vandalia scheme. A
petition was then presented to the board of trade by
Thomas Walpole, Benjamin Franklin, and others
for the purchase of two million four hundred thou-
sand acres of land. At the instance of Lord Hills-
borough, then at the head of the board, the project
was enlarged so as to include a much greater terri-

1 Smith, Historical Account of the Expedition of Henry Bouquet
{Ohio Valley Historical Series, I.); Winsor, Mississippi Basin,
442-444.

2 Alden, New Governments, 16-19. Cf. Franklin, Works
(Sparks's ed.), IV., 233-241, V., 45, VII., 355.

232 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

tory with provision for a colonial government. For
about £10,000 the lords of the treasury agreed to con-
vey to the company a vast domain covering nearly all
of West Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky as
far as a line drawn from the mouth of the Scioto to
Cumberland Gap; while the colony or jurisdiction
of Vandalia was to include this tract and the region
beyond to the Kentucky River. After long con-
sideration, in May, 1773, a report of the board of
trade, prepared at the king's command, favored the
project because of "the necessity there was of in-
troducing some regular form of government in a
country incapable of participating the advantages
arising from the civil institutions of Virginia"; and
declared that the "form and constitution of the new
colony which they named Vandalia" had received
attention.1

It is believed that the charter of Massachusetts
was to be taken as a general model for the or-
ganization. The governor and other officers were
to be appointed during the king's pleasure, and
in effect they were made dependent upon him alone
for their salaries. In the spring of 1775 the draft
of the royal grant was actually ready for execution
when the president of the Privy Council requested
Walpole and his associates to "wait for the grant
aforesaid, and the plan of government of Vandalia,

1 Winsor, Westward Movement, 46-62; Brown, in Filson Club,
Publications, VI., 13, 14; Turner, "Western State-Making," in
Am. Hist. Review, I., 73-75; Alden, New Governments, 20-28.

1775]

THE WEST

233

until hostilities, which had then commenced be-
tween Great Britain and the United Colonies, should
cease."1 The further history of the Vandalia
company lies beyond the period dealt with in this
volume.2

The incident is enlightening in two ways. First,
on the very eve of the Revolution, it appears to
reveal the policy deliberately adopted by Great
Britain in reference to her territory beyond the
Alleghanies. Seemingly this was to be cut up into
great proprietary domains, but with governments
not unlike those of the existing royal provinces;
while the provision rendering the colonial officials
dependent upon the crown for their salaries is con-
ceived in the spirit of the act "regulating" the
government of Massachusetts. "If the war had
broken out a little later," says a careful writer,
"there seems every reason to suppose that there
would have been fourteen instead of thirteen colo-
nies to fight for independence." 3

Again, it is significant that Virginia did not resist
these proceedings as an invasion of her jurisdiction.
She did, indeed, demand that all existing private
claims in the region in question should be respected ;
but the right of the crown to bestow vacant lands
and confer jurisdiction back of the mountains was
not challenged. The king's proclamation had en-

1 Alden, New Governments, 29, 35.

2 Turner, "Western State-Making," in Am. Hist. Review, I.,
81, 251 et seq. 3 Alden, New Governments, 35.

234 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

tirely ignored the shadowy title of several of the
colonies to the western territory ; and in the ensuing
period his right to do so was virtually conceded.
During the discussion of the Vandalia project
Franklin declared that the Alleghanies must be
considered the "real limits of Virginia";1 and
Nelson, president of the Virginia council — then
acting in place of the governor — said, "We do not
presume to say to whom our gracious Sovereign
shall grant his vacant lands. . . . With respect to
the establishment of a new colony on the back of
Virginia, it is a subject of too great political im-
portance for me to presume to give an opinion upon " ;
but "when that part of the country shall become
sufficiently populated, it may be a wise and prudent
measure."2 It was only after the declaration of
independence that Virginia began to assert her ex-
clusive western claims under her ancient charters.

While capitalists and statesmen were trying these
unsuccessful plans for colonization, the hardy back-
woodsmen, without leave or license, were laying the
lasting foundations of future commonwealths on
the western waters. The territory now embraced
in the states of Tennessee and Kentucky was then
a debatable ground between the aborigines of the
north and those of the south. Very few Indians
permanently dwelt in the region ; 3 but here, perhaps

1 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 367.

2 Plain Facts, in Alden, New Governments, 22, 23.

8 Shaler, Kentucky, 27, 44etseq.; Phelan, Tennessee, 15, 21.

1769] THE WEST ' 235

for ages, the tribes had met to hunt or to fight their
battles. Tennessee, not less than Kentucky, was a
"dark and bloody ground." But at this time the
region seemed to invite the occupancy of the whites.
The treaties made by Bouquet and at Fort Stanwix
tended to restrain the powerful Wabash tribes from
crossing the Ohio. The territory to the south, the
future states of Alabama and Mississippi, were held
by the formidable nations of Choc taws, Creeks, and
Cherokees. The Chickasaws, indeed, still clung to
their strongholds in the bluffs of the Mississippi
River in western Kentucky and Tennessee; but
this occupation was not looked upon as a serious
obstacle to settlement.

For twenty years the valleys of Kentucky had
been visited by traders and hunters — the daring
pathfinders of civilization. The head- waters of the
eastern tributaries of the Mississippi River lie
eastward of the main chain of the Alleghanies, and
thus offer an easy road from the Roanoke and
the James valleys, so that it was not difficult to
start the stream of permanent settlement toward
the western slope of the mountains. In 1769,
Captain William Bean, from Pittsylvania County, in
Virginia, built the first cabin on the Watauga, a
source of the Tennessee River. He was soon fol-
lowed by many other settlers, whose names for the
most part are unrecorded. Among these early
adventurers was Daniel Boone. A rude inscrip-
tion carved on the bark of a tree commemorates

236 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

his killing of a bear ; and he is believed to
have spent a night in Bean's cabin near a creek
which still bears his name.1 James Robertson —
like Daniel Boone a heroic figure in the win-
ning of the West — came from North Carolina in
1770.2

Among those who followed him were many of
the Regulators, whom misgovernment had forced
from their eastern homes. By 1772 three flourish-
ing settlements had been founded — one on the
Watauga, another in Carter's Valley, and a third
on the Nollichucky. It was supposed that these
were within the limits of the territory claimed by
Virginia, to which the Indian title had been ex-
tinguished by the treaty of 1768. Some of the
lands were actually taken under the pre-emption
laws of that colony. It was soon discovered that
they were south of the boundary -line, in the " un-
organized territory belonging to North Carolina,"
and that some of the settlements were made in
violation of the rights of the Cherokees under the
treaty of Lochaber in 1770. Therefore North
Carolina declined to acknowledge the settlements
and to make any provision for their government.
Furthermore, many of the pioneers were by no
means eager to place themselves again under the

Roosevelt, Winning of the West, I., 138; Thwaites, Daniel
Boone, 56; Phelan, Tennessee, 29.

2 Roosevelt, Winning of the West, I., 177 et seq.; and especially
Putnam, History of Middle Tennessee; or Life and Times of
James Robertson.

1776]

THE WEST

237

authority of a province from whose tyranny they
had just escaped.1

Accordingly, in true American fashion the Wa-
tauga pioneers resorted to self-help. In 1772, at a
convention called for the purpose, an association
was formed under a written constitution. A com-
mittee of thirteen was chosen to act as a legisla-
tive body. The executive and judicial powers were
vested in five commissioners chosen by the thirteen
from their own number. The committee appointed
a clerk, and made provision for the record of deeds
and wills. There were a sheriff and an attorney.
So far as applicable, the laws of Virginia were
adopted; and the government seems to have been
administered with great prudence. For a time
the Nollichucky settlement was not included in
the association; but in 1775, being "composed for
the most part of Tories," it was forced by the
"Watauga people and a band of Virginians" to
take the oath of fidelity to the revolutionary cause.
Thereafter it formed a part of the union. For four
years the "Watauga Association" was virtually
an independent colony; but in 1776, on petition,
it was received under the jurisdiction of North
Carolina.2

The first planting of Kentucky affords a chapter

burner, "Western State-Making," in Am. Hist. Review, I.,
75-77; Phelan, Tennessee, 32, 33.

2 Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 134; Winsor, Westward
Movement, 78-81; Hayward, Tennessee, 41; Phelan, Tennessee,
34-

vol. tiii. — 17

4

238 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

in institutional history equally instructive and
equally inspiring. Here, too, there was a pre-
paratory period of hunting, exploration, and ad-
venture.1 The era of settlement began in 1769,
when Daniel Boone, with five other backwoodsmen,
left his "family and peaceful habitation on the
Yadkin River in North Carolina, to wander through
the wilderness of America, in quest of the country
of Kentucke." In the spring of 177 1 he returned
for his "family with a determination to bring them
as soon as possible to live in Kentucke," which he
"esteemed a second paradise."2 Harrodsburg, the
first distinct community, was founded in 1774 by
James Harrod and some forty companions. In
1775 Boonesborough was begun and protected by a
fort ; and at the same time similar strongholds were
built at St. Asaphs, Boiling Springs, and Harrods-
burg.3

Already, without any governmental sanction, the
first step toward the creation of a new common-
wealth had been taken.4 At Hillsborough, North
Carolina, on August 27, 1774, a company had been

*Thwaites, Daniel Boone, 85-96; Shaler, Kentucky, 59-67;
Collins, Kentucky, I., 15; Durrett, in Filson Club, Publications,
VII., 21 et seq.

2 Filson, Discovery, Settlement, and Present State of Kentucke,
50-60; or Hart, Contemporaries, II., 383-385.

3 Collins, Kentucky, II., 517; Roosevelt, Winning of the West,
I., 259, 260; Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 355—
357, IV., 194-196.

4 Brown, in Filson Club, Publications, VI., 24 et seq.; Durrett,
in ibid., VII., 36 et seq.; Ranck, in ibid., XVI., 1-32.

1775]

THE WEST

239

formed, the members agreeing "to rent or purchase
a certain territory or tract of land . . . from the
Indian Tribes now in possession thereof, and to bind
and oblige ourselves and our heirs each to furnish his
Quota of Expenses necessary towards procuring a
grant and settling the country." On the 6th of
the next January the associators — Judge Richard
Henderson and eight others, all from North Carolina
— took the name of the "Transylvania Company."
In the spring of 1775, at Watauga, a treaty was
made with the Cherokees, who for £10,000 in
merchandise ceded to the company a vast domain
between the Ohio and the Tennessee,1 which was
called Transylvania. The proprietors at once pro-
ceeded to form a government, resolving that the
people should have a voice in making their own laws.
An open-air convention was called for May 23, 1775.
Boonesborough was represented by six, and each
of the other three settlements by four delegates,
elected "by free choice of Individuals." A legislature
for Transylvania was thus created, the proprietors
retaining the executive authority with the right of
absolute veto.

On the appointed day the convention met under
the branches of a mighty elm, and listened to an
opening speech by Henderson, the head of the com-
pany. We have a right to make necessary laws, he

burner, "Western State-Making," in Am. Hist. Review, 78;
U. S. Bureau of Ethnology, Report (1883-1884), 148 et seq.
Cf. Winsor, Westward Movement, 82, 97.

240 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

said, "without giving offense to Great Britain, or
any of the American colonies — without disturbing
the repose of any society or community under
Heaven." A kind of written constitution in the
form of articles of agreement between the proprie-
tors and the delegates was then accepted ; and laws
were speedily enacted: establishing courts of judica-
ture; regulating the militia; for the punishment of
criminals; to prevent profane swearing and Sab-
bath breaking; for writs of attachment; ascertain-
ing clerks' and sheriffs' fees ; to preserve the range ;
to preserve the breed of horses; to preserve game.1
After thus in five days creating a self-governing
commonwealth and providing it with a body of
laws, the backwoodsmen, "in good order, everybody
pleased," returned to their homes.2 The conven-
tion adjourned to the first Tuesday in the following
September, but it never met again.

The history of the colony of Transylvania is soon
told. It was denounced by Dunmore of Virginia,
and opposed by Martin of North Carolina.3 The
proprietors discovered that their title from the
Cherokees was utterly worthless ; for their lands were
in the region ceded to the king by the Six Nations at

1 Ranck, Boonesborough, in Filson Club, Publications, XVI.,
28, 196, 211; Butler, Kentucky, 508; Collins, Kentucky, II.,
502, 508; Alden, New Governments, 57; Shaler, Kentucky, 69, 70.

2 Henderson, Journal; Ranck, Boonesborough, in Filson Club,
Publications, XVI., 178.

3 Force, American Archives, 4th series, II., 174; Ranck,
Boonesborough, in Filson Club, Publications, XVI., 181; N.
C. Col. Records, 273, 274, 323.

1776] THE WEST 241

Fort Stanwix, and they were also claimed by Vir-
ginia. In alarm Harrod's party among the settlers
appealed to that province, asking that the territory
be placed under its jurisdiction.1 On the other
hand, the proprietors sent a petition to the Con-
tinental Congress praying that Transylvania might
be "added to the number of the United Colonies." 2
The petition was not granted ; but at last, in Decem-
ber, 1776, the Virginia assembly consented to or-
ganize the greater part of the territory as the
" county of Kentucky." 3

The prosperity of the settlements in Kentucky
and Tennessee had been greatly favored by the
results of Lord Dunmore's war. By the victory of
the Great Kanawha, October 10, 1774, they were
effectually relieved of all immediate peril from the
Indians of the northwest. The battle was thus of
the greatest national importance. It was almost
equivalent to the winning of the West ; for had it not
been possible to occupy this region during the early
years of the Revolutionary War, it is not improbable
that the treaty of 1783 might have fixed the western
boundary of the United States at the Alleghanies.4

burner, "Western State-Making," in Am. Hist. Review,
80-82; Hall, Sketches of the West, II., 236-239.

2 Ranck, Boonesborough, in Filson Club, Publications, XVI.,
42, 224 et seq. 3 Alden, New Governments, 61.

* Roosevelt, Winning of the West, I., 195 et seq., 240; Shaler,
Kentucky, 67.

CHAPTER XIV

ROYAL ORDERS AND COMMITTEES OF CORRE-
SPONDENCE

(1770-1773)

MEANWHILE George III. had achieved what he
felt to be a signal triumph. His ten years'
struggle to divide and control the Whig aristocracy
had been crowned with success. The Duke of
Grafton threw up his office ; and on the last day of
January, 1770, Lord North, leader of the new Tory
party of "King's friends," succeeded him as first
lord of the treasury. Through this facile servant the
king was at last able to try the hazardous experi-
ment of governing as well as reigning.

At once the new ministry had to deal with the
American problem. The Townshend acts were a
decided failure: they had brought the colonies close
to the verge of rebellion without creating a revenue.
Near the close of the session in 1769, Pownall, in
the House of Commons, had shown "that the total
produce of the new taxes for the first year had been
less than £16,000; that the expenses of the new
custom-house arrangements had reduced the net
proceeds of the crown revenue in the colonies to

242

1770] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 243

only £295 ; while the extraordinary military ex-
penses in America" for the same period amounted
to £170,000/ His motion for repeal was evaded
by referring the subject to the next session.2 In
May, 1770, soon after the prorogation, Hillsborough
sent a letter to the colonial governors, announcing
the intention to repeal the Townshend act so far as
it imposed duties on British goods, such duties
''having been laid contrary to the true principles
of commerce"; and adding that the administration
had never intended to ulay any further taxes upon
America for the purpose of raising a revenue."

Accordingly, on March 5 (the day of the " Boston
massacre"), Lord North, the new prime-minister,
moved a repeal of the Townshend act, except the
part imposing a duty on tea. In support of his
motion he said the act had given birth to "dan-
gerous combinations beyond the Atlantic," and
created "much dissatisfaction" among British mer-
chants; and he declared that "it must astonish
every reasonable man to think how so preposterous a
law," laying a tax on many articles of British manu-
facture, "could originally obtain existence from a
British legislature." The retention of the duty on
tea he justified on the ground that through the
drawback allowed the cost of tea in the provinces
was actually lowered, and because it was needful to
assert the supremacy of Parliament. "The proper-

1 Hildreth, United States, II., 552.

2 Cobbett- Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 6a?.

244 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1766

est time to exert our right of taxation is when the
right is refused. The properest time for making
resistance is when we are attacked." 1 An amend-
ment by Pownall to include the tax on tea in the
repeal was defeated by a large majority. Hence
in April the law imposing a duty on glass, paper,
and painters' colors was formally rescinded; but,
in the spirit of the declaratory act of 1766, to sup-
port the right of parliamentary taxation, the duty
on tea was retained.2 In connection with this
measure the government pledged itself to raise no
further revenue in America ; and the detested quar-
tering act — limited by its terms to three years —
was allowed quietly to expire.

The retention of the tax on tea was due largely to
the personal influence of the king; and that he was
able to have his way in so useless and so perilous
a measure reveals the utter ineptitude of British
statesmanship in this critical period. During the
next three years colonial affairs were directed mainly
by royal orders. In consequence of the partial
repeal of the Townshend acts, commerce between
England and America began to improve. The
boycott of British goods had been severely felt in
England: from £2,378,000, in 1768, exports to
America had fallen to £1,634,000, in 1769. 3 The
non-importation agreements were now discontinued,

1 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 853-855.

2 10 George III., chap, xvii

3 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVI., 855.

1770] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 245

except that everywhere were formed associations
whose members pledged themselves not to drink
tea upon which the tax had been paid. For the
year 1770 the amount of imports from Great Britain
rose to £1,925,571, while the next year it rose to
over £4,200,000.

But the discontent of the colonies was not allowed
to slumber. In various ways the controversy was
kept up, and feeling became more and more bitter.
During the autumn of 1769 the New York assembly,
then dominated by the more moderate party, com-
plied with the billeting act and was allowed to
resume its functions. For censuring this conduct
of the assembly and calling a public meeting to
consider it, Alexander McDougall, afterwards a
major-general in the revolutionary army, was com-
mitted to prison by the house. In sympathy with
the latter, the soldiers quartered in the city cut
down a liberty-pole erected by the patriotic party.
The townsmen retaliated ; and thus frequent brawls
between them and the troops took place.1

The royal orders now began to work their evil
influence. Before Bernard's departure from the
province the general court had been prorogued
until January 10, 1770, to meet as usual in Boston.
But in consequence of instructions from the secretary
of state, announcing the king's pleasure, Hutchinson
called the meeting in Cambridge for March 15.

1 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VIII., 198, 199-201, 206-209,
212-214, 220.

246 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1770

The house protested "against any such reason for
proroguing this court, as being an infraction of our
essential rights, as men and citizens, as well as those
derived to us by the British constitution, and the
charter of this colony";1 and it requested a copy
of the royal instructions.

Hutchinson declined the request, " because the
king has been pleased to order that no letters nor
instructions to his governor, shall be communicated,
without his majesty's special leave"; nor would he
yield to the repeated request of the house, that the
general court should be called in the usual place,
although as a matter of fact the king had given him
discretion so to do. By a vote of 96 out of 102 the
assembly declared the removal to Cambridge " a very
great grievance," committed without the "least
probability of serving any one good purpose," and
declined to do business while " thus constrained to
hold their sessions out of the town of Boston." 2
Becoming bolder, it affirmed that "the people and
their representatives have a right to withstand the
abusive exercise of a legal and constitutional pre-
rogative of the crown"; and incidentally it con-
demned the order to rescind "the excellent resolu-
tion of a former house " as an " impudent mandate." 3

The wrangle growing out of this useless but

1 Bradford, Mass. Slate Papers, 194, 195. On this controversy,

see Cushing, Transition to Commonwealth, 31 et seq.

2 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 198, 215, 242, 248.
5 Ibid., 242, 248.

1770] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 247

dangerous act of interference took up two whole
sessions of the assembly; and when at length the
court, under protest, consented to proceed to busi-
ness, after a day of solemn humiliation and prayer,1
another controversy was at hand. By royal order
Hutchinson had reluctantly removed from the castle
the garrison in the pay of the province and placed
the fort in charge of the regular troops.2 The house
bitterly complained of this action, saying that
"false representations" must have been made to
the king, "to induce him to pass an order, which
implies a total want of confidence, and carries in it
the evident marks of his royal displeasure"; and
alleging that the authority vested in the governor
by the charter must thus be " superseded by instruc-
tion." For " if the custody and government of that
fortress" are now "lodged with the military power,
independent of the supreme civil magistrate . . . ,
it is so essential an alteration of the constitution,
as must justly alarm a free people."3 In secret
session of the council Hutchinson disclosed his in-
structions. Feeling that he was executing an un-
wise and probably illegal order, he went to the
castle, discharged the garrison without warning,
and then retired to his country-house at Mil-
ton.4 The same royal order made the harbor at

1 Hildreth, United States, II., 560.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., 111., 307 et seq.

3 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 258.

4 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 389.

248 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1769

Boston the rendezvous of the king's ships in Amer-
ican waters.

In April, 1771, Hutchinson announced his ap-
pointment as governor; and in the following July,
under another royal order, he gave rise to a new
controversy by vetoing a bill providing for the annual
income-tax, which, according to custom, included
the salaries of the crown officers. For this the house
rebuked him, saying that withholding his assent
from the bill, " merely by force of instruction, is
effectually vacating the charter, and giving in-
structions the force of laws, within this province." 1
The popular resentment was still further provoked
by Hutchinson's announcement on June 13, 1772,
that henceforth his salary would be paid by the
crown. The house declared this to be an "in-
fraction upon the charter in a material point,' 9
whereby a most important trust was wrested out of
its hands; and it refused to provide for the repair
of the province house while occupied by a governor
not drawing his whole support from the general
assembly.2 Following close upon this, in August,
came the news that in the same way the judges were
to be made dependent on the royal favor.3 The
effect of this measure in advancing party organiza-
tion will presently be considered.

While these events were taking place in Massa-

1 Bradford, Mass. Slate Papers, 295, 306.
* Ibid., 324-331.

a Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 361.

1772] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 249

chusetts the other provinces were harassed by
similar orders from the ministry, issued " under the
king's sign manual, with the privy seal annexed."
Each province received a set of instructions ac-
cording to local circumstances, so that a general
issue upon them could not be made.1 They dealt
with a variety of subjects. Sometimes the assem-
blies were arbitrarily dismissed. In Georgia the
governor vetoed the choice of Dr. Jones as speaker
because he was "a very strong Liberty Boy." The
house pronounced the veto a breach of privilege and
a violation of the liberties of the people.2 Thereupon
Hillsborough ordered the governor to veto the choice
of the next speaker, and to dissolve the assembly
in case the right to do so were questioned. This
command was obeyed to the letter.3

South Carolina in 1769 — constrained by the de-
mands of the settlers of the "up country," who
were "clamorous for courts upon any terms" — had
reluctantly provided perpetual salaries for the
judges, although these would be appointed during
the king's pleasure.4 Thereafter Rawlins Lowndes
and other judges from the colony were dismissed,
and in 1772 persons from Great Britain were sent out
to take their place. Since March, 1771, there had
been no legislation, because the assembly resented

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 252.

* Jones, Georgia, II., 117-119; Stevens, Georgia, II,, 71.

8 Jones, Georgia, II., 122-124.

4 McCrady, South Carolina, 1719-1796, 623-643.

250 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1770

the action of the governor, who, under a royal in-
struction, refused his assent to bills appropriating
money for the " Supporters of the Bill of Rights,"
an English "association to raise means to pay the
debts of John Wilkes and to provide for his support
and his expenses while imprisoned."1 Moreover,
in 1772, the governor, Lord Charles Montagu,
stirred up another quarrel with the assembly by
convening it at Beaufort, seventy-five miles from
Charleston, the usual place of sitting.2

The indignation of the people of Virginia was
aroused by a much more serious grievance. In
1770 the king, in the interest of British merchants,
issued an instruction commanding the governor
"upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to
no law by which the importation of slaves should
be in any respect prohibited or obstructed." In
the address against this order, the burgesses in 1772
declared that "the importation of slaves into the
colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been
considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and
under its present encouragement, we have too much
reason to fear will endanger the very existence of
your Majesty's American dominions. We are sen-
sible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great
Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of

1 McCrady, South Carolina, 1719-1776, 662-664, 683-692;
Smith, South Carolina, 170, 369-3S6.

2 McCrady, South Carolina, 17 19-1776, 693-699; Smith, South
Carolina, 380 et seq.

1772] COMMITTEES OP CORRESPONDENCE 251

traffic ; but when we consider that it greatly retards
the settlement of the colonies with more useful in-
habitants, and may in time have the most destructive
influence, we presume to hope that the interest of a
few will be disregarded, when placed in competition
with the security and happiness of such numbers
of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. . . .
Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most
humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those
restraints on your . . . governors of this colony,
which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might
check so very pernicious a commerce."1 Yet at
the very time when George III. was thus fostering
the slave-trade in America, Chief -Justice Mansfield
rendered the famous decision which in effect de-
clares a slave free the instant he sets foot on the
soil of England.

An unwise assertion of prerogative in Maryland
was producing similar effects. By proclamation in
1770 the governor revived a law regulating fees of
officers "which had expired by limitation, in this
way asserting the right to levy taxes."2 The con-
troversy thus aroused, dividing the colony into
two parties, was kept up until the Revolution .

In Rhode Island the execution of the revenue laws
led to a serious act of violence. Lieutenant Duding-

1 Miscellaneous Papers, in Va. Hist. Soc, Collections, new
series, VI., 14.

3 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 253 ; Scharf, Maryland, II.,
124 et seq.

252 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1772

ston, commander of the Gaspee, a schooner carrying
eight guns, had given offence by his arbitrary and
unlawful methods. "He stopped all vessels, in-
cluding small market boats, without showing his
authority for so doing; and even sent the property
he had illegally seized to Boston for trial, contrary
to an act of Parliament, which required such trials to
be held in the colonies where the seizures were
made.,, 1 Moreover, he is said to have searched for
smuggled goods with needless violence; and in
general he made himself " extremely obnoxious to
the colony, in which smuggling was one of the most
flourishing and most popular trades."2

On complaint of inhabitants of Providence, Chief-
Justice Hopkins held "that no commander of any
vessel has a right to use any authority in the body
of the colony, without previously applying to the
Governor, and showing his warrant for so doing;
and also being sworn to a due exercise of his office." 3
Dudingston appealed to the admiral, who fully sus-
tained his course. June 9, 1772, lured into shallow
water by a boat which it was chasing, the Gaspee
ran aground. In the evening the ship was boarded
by an armed party from Providence. Dudingston
was shot and fell on deck seriously wounded, the
crew were bound and placed on shore, and the ship
burned to the water's edge. The manner in which

1 Bartlett, in R. I. Col. Records, VII., 60.
a Lecky, England, III., 405.
3 R. I. Col. Records, VII. , 60.

1772] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 253

this outrage was dealt with by the ministry soon
gave the colonists new cause for complaint.1

The rule of the colonies by royal orders was thus
generally resented as unconstitutional. "The min-
istry," it was said, "have substituted discretion for
law." 2 For two years this policy had caused irrita-
tion and strife. It was now about to prepare the
way for the united resistance of America to Great
Britain by affording the immediate motive for a
revolutionary party organization.

In Massachusetts Samuel Adams had already
become the centre of political agitation. He pos-
sessed precisely the qualities which belong to a con-
summate revolutionary leader. The very narrow-
ness of view which often prevented him from seeing
the merits of his adversaries only added to this
power. He had unbounded faith in democratic
self-government. To us he is perhaps best known
as the "man of the town-meeting." He reverenced
the people and was almost fanatical in his zeal for
constitutional liberty. He had indomitable will,
great tenacity of purpose, and unflinching courage.
His integrity cannot justly be impeached. In his
religious prejudices and beliefs he was a puritan of
the puritans. He was poor in worldly goods, simple
in manner and dress, and able to enter sympatheti-

1 Bartlett, Destruction of the Gaspee, in R. I. Col. Records, VII.,
57-192; Arnold, Hist, of R. I., II., 309-320.

* R. H. Lee, Arthur Lee, L, 248; Frothingham, Rise of the
Republic, 255.

VOL. VIII. 18

254 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1772

cally into the thoughts and feelings of plain men.
Much of his power lay in his ability to persuade
and lead the fishermen, rope-makers, and ship-
masters of Boston. Moreover, he possessed literary
skill of a high order. His almost innumerable
papers during the revolutionary period are compact,
sometimes even elegant, in form, and many of them
masterly in their grasp of the great problems with
which they deal. He. was decidedly the "penman
of the Re volution.' *

In addition to his other gifts, Samuel Adams had
a rare talent for practical politics. He displayed
a capacity for organization sometimes lapsing into
intrigue, a foresight sometimes sinking into cunning,
which render him the prototype of a long line of
American politicians. It is said that "he had an
hereditary antipathy to the British government,
for his father seems to have been rained by the
restrictions the English parliament imposed on the
circulation of paper money, and a bank in which
his father was largely concerned had been dissolved
by act of parliament. " 1 It is, indeed, likely that this
incident did not tend to lessen his dislike of the
British colonial policy. But to suppose that his
hatred of monarchy and the English church2 was
essentially due to a feeling of personal wrong or to
personal spite would show little understanding of

1 Lecky, England, III., 391. See especially Davis, Provincial
Banks: Land and Silver, in Colonial Soc. of Mass., Publications,
HI., 38-40.

2 Cf. Brooks Adams, Emancipation of Mass., 347 et seq.

1772] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 255

Samuel Adams or of the real causes of the American
Revolution.

• From the first menace of the stamp tax Adams
taught the necessity of union. For some time he
held under consideration a scheme for party or-
ganization through committees of correspondence.1
The instructions of the ministry requiring the judges
to receive their salaries from the crown gave him
opportunity to carry out his project. On October
5, 1772, in a Boston journal he wrote, "Is Life,
Property, and everything dear and sacred to be sub-
mitted to the Decisions of PENSIONED judges? . . .
Let Associations and Combinations be everywhere set
up to consult and recover our just Rights." 2 He ap-
pealed to the town-meeting; but the other leaders
were lukewarm, and his first efforts were not success-
ful. November 2, 1772 — taking advantage of the
anger caused by Hutchinson's arrogant answer to the
resolution of inquiry — he moved " that a Committee
of Correspondence be appointed to consist of twenty-
one Persons — to state the Rights of the Colonists and
of this Province in particular, as Men, as Christians,
and as Subjects; to communicate and publish the
same to the several Towns . . . and to the World as
the sense of this Town, with the Infringements and
Violations thereof that have been, or from time to
time may be made." 3

1 Cf. Collins, Committees of Correspondence, in Amer. Hist. Assn.,
Report, 1901, 1., 243-271. * Hosmer, Samuel A dams, 194, 195.
'Boston Town Records, 1770-1777, p. 93.

256 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1772

Though at first opposed by some of Adams's
associates, this motion was at last unanimously
adopted. November 20, the committee of corre-
spondence submitted to a town-meeting in Faneuil
Hall its report, which comprised a "State of the
Rights of the Colonists," drafted by Samuel Adams;
a " List of the Infringements and Violations of
Those Rights," prepared by Joseph Warren; and
a "Letter of Correspondence" with the other towns
of the province, written by Benjamin Church. To-
gether these papers constituted the most radical and
comprehensive statement of the case of the colonists
which had yet appeared.1 The towns began at once
to appoint similar committees ; and during the early
months of 1773 their replies were sent in. The
substructure of a future national organization was
thus laid. "The whole frame of it," says Hutchin-
son, "was calculated to strike the colonists with a
sense of their just claim to independence, and to
stimulate them to assert it." 2 According to Daniel
Leonard, "this is the foulest, subtlest, and most
venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of
sedition. I saw the small seed when it was planted ;
it was a grain of mustard. I have watched the
plant until it has become a great tree."3

Nevertheless, there seemed to be a lull in the storm.

1 Boston Town Records, 1770-1777, pp. 94-108.
1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 366 et seq.
• Quoted from Hosmer, Samuel Adams, 204. Cf. Cushing,
Transition to Commonwealth Government, 95 et seq.

1773] COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 257

Not a single committee of correspondence was at
that time chosen outside of Massachusetts. Other
colonies, however, were drawn into line by the
arrival of a new royal order from Lord Dartmouth,
successor to Hillsborough in the colonial office,
creating a special commission1 to investigate the
affair of the Gaspee. The commission was author-
ized to arrest the offenders, if discovered, and
send them to England for trial. No legal evidence
could be secured; and so in June the commission
finally adjourned without accomplishing its pur-
pose.2

Already the proposal to transport Americans to
England for trial had borne fruit. In Virginia, on
March 12, 1773, the house of burgesses appointed a
standing committee for intercolonial correspondence.
Among its eleven members were Richard Bland,
Dabney Carr, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee,
and Thomas Jefferson. In a set of resolutions the
committee was directed to inform itself " particularly
of the principles and authority on which was con-
stituted a court of inquiry, said to have been lately
held in Rhode Island, with powers to transport
persons accused of offences committed in America to
places beyond the seas to be tried" ; and the speaker
was instructed to send a copy of the resolutions to
each of the other assemblies on the continent, with
a request to appoint a similar committee of cor-

1 R. I. Col. Records, VII., 108 et seq.
* Ibid., 120 et seq.

258 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1773

respondence.1 By July 8, five colonies — Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and South Carolina — had complied with the request.

Thus in these two sets of committees, local and
provincial, the foundation of American independence
was laid. " The Union of the Colonies, which is now
taking place," it was said in the press, "is big with
the most important advantages to this continent.
From this Union will result our Security from all
foreign enemies. . . . The United Americans may
bid Defiance to all their open as well as secret foes ;
therefore let it be the Study of all to make the
Union of the Colonies firm and perpetual, as it will
be the great Basis for Liberty and every public
Blessing in America."2

1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 279-281, 284.
? "Sidney," in New Hampshire Gazette, July 2, 1773.

\

CHAPTER XV

THE TEA-PARTY AND THE COERCIVE ACTS

(1773-1774)

IN his address to the general court, January 6,
1773, Hutchinson entered into an elaborate de-
fence of the legislative supremacy of Parliament;
alleged that the province was in a "disturbed and
disordered state;" and as the cause thereof con-
demned the recent resolves of the towns as denying
"the supreme authority of parliament," and tend-
ing "to alienate the affections of the people from
their sovereign." " I know of no line," he declared,
"that can be drawn between the supreme authority
of parliament and the total independence of the
colonies." 1 His challenge was promptly accepted,
and each house presented a strong argument in
defence of the American theory. The assembly
urged that if there be no line between the " supreme
authority of parliament and total independence of
the colonies," then they must be "totally inde-
pendent" ; for it could not " have been the intention
of the parties in the compact, that we should be
reduced to a state of vassalage." But to draw

1 Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 336, 340.

259

260 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1768

the line of distinction would be "an arduous under-
taking, and of very great importance to all the other
colonies ; and therefore, could we conceive of such a
line, we should be unwilling to propose it, without
their consent in Congress." 1

A few months after this controversy had thus
elicited the formidable suggestion of continental
union, Hutchinson had to face a storm which com-
pletely wrecked his influence in the province. One
day in December, 1772, Franklin, who was now
agent for Massachusetts, was assured by a gentle-
man that all the grievances complained of took their
rise, not from the British government, but were pro-
jected, proposed, or solicited by "some of the most
respectable among the Americans themselves, as
necessary measures for the welfare of that country." 2
Franklin was incredulous; but a few days later, in
proof of his statement, the gentleman placed in his
hands a number of letters which Hutchinson, Oliver,
and other crown officers, all except Charles Paxton
native Americans, had written to Thomas Whately,
formerly a member of Parliament and secretary to
the treasury under George Grenville, but at the time
of the correspondence (17 68-1 7 69), a private person
having no official connection with the government.8
Franklin gained permission to send these letters

1 Bradfold, Mass. State Papers, 342-364, 368-396.

2 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 410 et seq.
'Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 404, n.; Diary ana"

Letters, I., 83.

1773]

COERCION

261

to Massachusetts, to be inspected by a few of the
leading men, under a pledge that they should
neither be copied nor printed. The pledge was dis-
regarded by the recipients, and, after being privately
circulated for several months, the letters were pub-
lished under the pretext that Hutchinson by im-
plication had given his consent.1

The fiercest indignation of the patriotic party was
excited. Hutchinson was put in a hard position.
He was able and upright, a thorough loyalist, and
had openly opposed the course taken by the rev-
olutionary leaders. But though honestly meant,
and very moderate in tone, the letters contained
some statements that he did not intend should be
made public. He had not directly attacked the
charter of Massachusetts, nor recommended the use
of military force; but he had declared that " there
must be an abridgment of what are called English
liberties"; for he doubted "whether it is possible
to project a system of government in which a
colony, three thousand miles distant from the par-
ent state, shall enjoy all the liberty of the parent
state." 3 This passage raised a storm of criticism.
Oliver had gone much further than Hutchinson,
suggesting that a colonial aristocracy might be
formed from the council, and hinting that some of

1 See the message of June 9, 1773, in Bradford, Mass. State
Papers, 404. Cf. Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 441;
Lecky, England, III., 414.

* Letters Sent to Great Britain, by his Excellency ThoniQS
Hutchinson, etc. (Boston, 1773), 16.

262 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1773

the "original incendiaries" might be summarily
dealt with ; while Paxton, one of the commissioners
of customs, made a plain demand for "two or three
regiments."1 Under the circumstances, it was in-
evitable that the writers should be denounced as
traitors to their country.

To render a just judgment in this delicate "case
of conscience" is by no means easy. Franklin had
taken advantage of stolen private correspondence.
He might urge as a palliative, but merely as a
palliative, that, so far as the British government was
concerned, the sanctity of the mails was a "trans-
parent fiction." Franklin's own letters had been
tampered with. The records of the times contain
ample proof that the sacredness of confidential
correspondence was constantly ignored by public
officials. "The confidential clerks of the Post-
master-General were sometimes engaged twelve
hours on a stretch in rifling private letters. The
King, to judge by the endorsements in his own hand,
— which marked the hour and minute when he re-
ceived each packet of intercepted documents, and
the hour and minute when he returned it to the
Office, — must have passed a great deal of his time
in reading them."2 On the other hand, it might
plausibly be contended that the letters of Hutchin-
son and Oliver were quasi public papers. They were

1 Letters sent to Great Britain, by his Excellency Thomas Hutch-
inson, etc. (Boston, 1773), 28-33, 37- Cf. Hosmer, Samuel Ad-
ams, 223. 2 Trevelyan, American Revolution, I., 170.

1773]

COERCION

263

shown to Grenville and other statesmen, and may-
have had some influence in fostering a sentiment
hostile to the colonies. Franklin and the Massa-
chusetts leaders might well excuse the violation of
the sanctity of private correspondence in the case of
those whom they believed to be public enemies. ' ' The
writers, too," says Franklin, "had taken the same
liberty with the letters of others," transmitting to
England "those of Rosne and Auchmuty in Confirma-
tion of their own calumnies against the Americans."1
Indeed, a grave responsibility was assumed if
Hutchinson and the other American office-holders
under the crown, even in small part, had suggested
the disastrous policy of the British government.
This was Franklin's principal alleged reason for
sending the letters. In transmitting them he wrote,
" For my own part, I cannot but acknowledge, that
my resentment against this country, for its arbitrary
measures in governing us, conducted by the late
minister, has, since my conviction by these papers
that those measures were projected, advised, and
called for by men of character among ourselves, and
whose advice must therefore be attended with
all the weight that was proper to mislead, and
which could therefore scarce fail of misleading; my
own resentment, I say, has by this means been
exceedingly abated. / think they must have the
same effect with you." 2 Franklin's conduct appears

1 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 412.

2 Ibid., 414.

264 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1773

to be justified by his sense of public duty. Never-
theless, the use made of the letters in Massachusetts
had a result precisely the opposite of that which he
anticipated. Instead of creating a better feeling
towards the mother-country, the spirit of bitter-
ness and resistance was greatly intensified. The
incident undoubtedly hastened the coming of the
Revolution.

In England it was not known by whom the letters
were sent to America ; and to this day the name of
the person who gave them to Franklin has not been
disclosed.1 William Whately, brother and executor
of Thomas, and a certain John Temple, who had
had access to the papers, were publicly accused ; and
in December, 1773, a duel between them grew out
of the charge. To prevent further mischief — for
Whately was wounded — Franklin wrote to the Public
Advertiser, declaring that he alone was the " person
who obtained and transmitted to Boston the letters
in question," whose "tendency was to incense the
mother-country against her colonies, and, by the
steps recommended, to widen the breach." 2

The court party was in high spirits. The as-
sembly of Massachusetts had petitioned3 for the re-
moval of Hutchinson and Oliver. January 29, 1774*
the petition was heard before the committee of the
privy council for plantation affairs. Wedderburn,

1 Morse, Franklin, 177.

'Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 435.

s Bradford, Mass. State Papers, 405-409.

COERCION

265

the solicitor-general, appeared for Hutchinson and
Oliver; but the real purpose of the meeting was to
convict Franklin. The courtiers were there in full
force. They had been " invited, as to an entertain-
ment, and there never was such an appearance
of privy councillors on any occasion, not less than
thirty-five, besides an immense crowd of other
auditors."1 Encouraged by their admiring ap-
plause, Wedderburn proceeded, in his most brilliant
and virulent manner, to indict Franklin as a thief.
" Having hitherto aspired after fame by his writings,
he will henceforth esteem it a libel to be called a
man of letters — homo trium liter arum." 2 The com-
mittee pronounced the petition of the Massachusetts
assembly "false, groundless, and scandalous, and
calculated only for the seditious purpose of keeping
up a spirit of clamor and discontent in the prov-
ince,' 9 and held that Franklin's silence proved the
charge true that he had "surreptitiously obtained
the letters." Franklin was at once dismissed from
his office of deputy postmaster-general;3 and, per-
ceiving that he could no longer be useful, he re-
signed his agency for Massachusetts. In the spring
of 1775 he went home, and did not return to Europe
until he came as the representative of an indepen-
dent nation.

In Massachusetts, Samuel Adams was urging the

1 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), VIII., no.

2 I.e., "f-u-r," Latin for thief. Cf. Franklin, Works (Sparks's
ed.), IV., 447 et seq. 3 Ibid., VIII., 113.

266 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

call of a general congress, and through the Boston
committee of correspondence he was zealously stir-
ring up hostility to the ministerial policy. He was
perhaps the first American to foresee independence.
Apparently he now earnestly desired it ; and at this
moment an act of violence speedily led on to its
realization, for the Boston tea-party and its im-
mediate results were followed by a continental
congress and the appeal to arms.

The king and his ministers had committed a seri-
ous blunder in retaining the tax on tea in order to
assert the parliamentary right; for the colonies
determined to resist the tax in order to deny that
right. Indirectly the same revenue might have been
derived from America by levying in England a duty
of threepence a pound ; in other words, by reducing
by that amount the drawback allowed the East
India Company. Indeed, Hutchinson believed that
if all the duties laid by Townshend in 1767 "had
been paid upon exportation from England, and ap-
plied to the purpose proposed, there would not have
been any opposition made to the act. It would
have been a favour to the colonies. The saving upon
tea would have been more than the whole paid upon
the other articles. The consumer in America would
have paid the duty, just as much as if it had been
charged upon importation.' ' 1

The Townshend revenue act laid an import duty
of threepence a pound on tea shipped to America.

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., III., 179.

COERCION

267

By the supplementary statute of the same year, on
such shipments was allowed a drawback of the
whole import duty paid in England, amounting at
the time to about twenty-four per cent, of the gross
price; but on the express condition that the East
India Company, in whose interest the arrangement
was made, should make good any loss of revenue by
reason of such drawback.1 As a result, in 1769 tea
was actually sold in Boston at ninepence a pound
less than before the acts. Moreover, an earlier
statute2 allowed tea to be exported to America
without paying any of the inland duties still charged
in England, amounting to twenty-five per cent, of
the gross price. Therefore, according to Hutchin-
son, the accuracy of whose statement is sustained
by recent research, tea "was cheaper than it had
ever been sold by the illicit traders; and the poor
people in America drank the same tea in quality,
at three shillings the pound, which the people in
England drank at six shillings." 3

The business of the company did not prosper as
well as expected. During the first four years the
sales nearly doubled; but to make up the loss of
revenue the company was obliged to pay over
£1 15,000. A further concession was therefore
sought; and in 1772, on exportation to America, a

* 7 George III., chap, lvi.; MacDonald, Select Charters, 237-
330. *2i George II., chap. xiv.

3 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 351; Farrand, "The
Taxation of Tea, 1767-1773," in Am. Hist. Review, III., 267.

268 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1773

rebate of three-fifths of the import duty was granted ;
while the company was no longer required to make
up the loss of revenue.1 But the non-importation
agreements now stood in the way: the colonists
would not drink the taxed tea at any price. In
1773 "about seventeen million pounds of tea lay
unsold in the warehouses" of the company. It had
to face impending bankruptcy ; and the government
must lose its annual payment of £400,000.

Again Parliament came to the company's aid.
The whole of the import duty was now remitted on
exportation to America.2 At the same time, by ob-
taining a license from the treasury, the company was
permitted to send the tea directly from its ware-
houses to its own agents or consignees in America.
The middleman's profit would thus be saved. For
hitherto it had been necessary to ship the tea to
England and to sell it at public auction to the
merchants, who then exported it to the colonies.
Under the new concession the company could have
afforded to sell the tea, not merely at ninepence
a pound less than in England, but at a small "frac-
tion of the price" obtained there.3

However, against the advice of Treco thick for the
company, the tax of threepence a pound was still
exacted; and this effort to force the tea on the

1 12 George III., chap, lx.; Macpherson, Commerce with India,
194, 416; Farrand, in Am. Hist. Review, III., 269.
2 13 George III., chap, xliv.; Lecky, England, III., 419.
1 Farrand, in Am. Hist. Review, 111., 269.

1773]

COERCION

269

colonists was largely due to the king. It is " to no
purpose making objections," said Lord North, "for
the king would have it so. The king meant to try
the question with America." 1 He seems to have
fancied that the Americans would take the bait and
forget the principle. If so he was soon undeceived.
The company selected its agents, among whom
were the two sons of Hutchinson, and in the autumn
of 1773 sent a number of ships laden with tea to
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.
The people were determined to prevent the landing
of the tea, and, by persuasion or menace, to cause
the agents to resign their commissions. In Charles-
ton a cargo of two hundred and fifty-seven chests
arrived December 2. The agents resigned; and
after the twentieth day, the duty being unpaid, the
tea was seized by the collector and stored in vaults
under the exchange.2 A meeting of the inhabitants
of Philadelphia resolved that the duty on tea was
illegal, and that every person who ' 1 countenanced
the unloading, vending, or receiving the tea, was an
enemy to his country." 3 In both Philadelphia and
New York the consignees were induced to resign,
and the tea was sent back to London.

More serious events were taking place in Boston,
where, under authority of the town-meeting, or-

1 Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), III., 439; Almon,
Anecdotes of Pitt, II., 242.

2 McCrady, South Carolina, 1719-1776, p. 727.
a Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 302.

VOL vin. — 10

270 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1773

ganized resistance was guided by Samuel Adams
and the Boston committee of correspondence, with
which the committees of four or five neighboring
places sometimes sat in Faneuil Hall as a sort of
representative senate. An immense mass-meeting
of the inhabitants of six towns, held in the Old
South Church, resolved that "at all events" the tea
should be sent back without payment of duty.
When the sheriff of Suffolk read the governor's
proclamation warning the people "unlawfully as-
sembled, forthwith to disperse, and to surcease all
further unlawful proceedings, at their utmost peril,"
he was greeted with insults and derision. The
agents refused to resign their commissions, and
took shelter in the castle. Neither clearance papers
from the collector nor a pass from the governor
could be obtained by the owners to allow them
to carry their cargoes back to the Thames. A
popular guard was placed over the tea ships to
prevent the tea from being landed ; and the meetings
of various towns in the province promised aid to
Boston, even at the hazard of life and property.

Finally, on the evening of December 16, 1773, the
last day before the tea, for non-payment of duty,
might be legally seized by the collector and stored
at the castle — a party of fifty or sixty men, dressed
as Mohawk Indians, and directed by Adams, boarded
the three tea ships at Griffin's wharf, broke open the
three hundred and forty-two chests of tea, and cast
their contents into the bay. Clearly the people were

1774] COERCION 271

in a dangerous temper ; for this lawless destruction
of private property was suffered to take place un-
hindered by the provincial council or the town au-
thorities, and the offenders were never in any way
called to account. This riot in Boston was due
mainly to the sombre fanaticism which sometimes
clouded the judgment of Samuel Adams; and the
incident cannot justly be looked upon as an honor
to his memory.1

There were not wanting other indications of an
impending crisis, which only the highest wisdom
could avert. "The inhabitants, in many parts of
the province," says Hutchinson, "were learning the
use of fire-arms, but not under the officers of the
regiment to which they belonged. They were
forming themselves into companies for military
exercise, under officers of their own choosing ; hint-
ing the occasion there might soon be for employing
their arms in defence of their liberties." 2 Through-
out the country the exultation over the course taken
by Boston was very ominous: party organization
was rapidly developed; the assemblies which had
not yet responded to the Virginia call now appointed
intercolonial committees of correspondence; and
local committees, hitherto confined to Massachusetts,
began to be formed in other provinces.3 Meantime,
in February, 1774, the Massachusetts house, by a

1 Contemporary account in Hart, Contemporaries, II., No. 153.

2 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay. III., 455.

? Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 31 1-3 13,

272 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

vote of 92 out of 100 members, had impeached Chief -
Justice Oliver of a high crime and misdemeanor for
accepting his salary from the crown. On March 30,
before the impeachment was tried, Hutchinson pro-
rogued the general court, and a few days later dis-
solved it. He was not destined to meet it again,
for after he was superseded by Gage1 he left for
England (June 1), and never thereafter saw his
native land.

Parliament had to face a serious crisis when it
met, March 7, 1774. The ministers placed before the
two houses messages from the king, urging their
consideration of American affairs. Wise policy
seemed to require that one of three courses should be
taken: the colonies might be conciliated by with-
drawal of the obnoxious measures; or the laws
should be firmly but justly enforced ; or they might
be allowed peacefully to separate. Josiah Tucker,
dean of Gloucester, anticipating in part the thought
of Turgot regarding the destiny of colonies, advised
a peaceful separation. He was no friend of the
Americans; but he believed that the empire would
be stronger and its economic interests better served
if they were suffered quietly to set up for themselves.2
Burke and Chatham would not hear of a dissolution
of the empire. "If I could once persuade myself,"
said Chatham, that the Americans "entertain the
most distant intention of throwing off the legislative

1 Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, III., 459.

2 Stephens, Turgot, 322-323; Tucker, Political Tracts.

1774]

COERCION

273

supremacy and great constitutional superintending
power and control of the British legislature, I should
myself be the very first person . . .to enforce that
power by every exertion this country is capable of
making." 1 But Chatham, like Burke, would have
saved the union by conciliation.

On the other hand, the king was bent on making
an example of Massachusetts. He was utterly un-
able to see that there was imminent danger of
continental resistance. General Gage, recently re-
turned from America, assured him that "four regi-
ments stationed in Boston would prevent any dis-
turbance." "They will be lions while we are
lambs," he said; "but if we take the resolute part
they will prove very meek. " 2 Moreover, in England
a feeling of anger was aroused by the recent acts
of violence in America. Therefore, an irreparable
blunder was committed. Instead of adopting one
of the three courses which wisdom pointed out, the
ministry proposed invalid statutes as a punishment
for the unlawful conduct of the colonists.

Five measures, known in England as the "re-
pressive" and in America as the "intolerable" acts,
were speedily carried through Parliament. The
first of these closed the port of Boston to commerce
from the first day of the following June until such

Thackeray, Chatham, II., 274; Cobbett- Hansard, Pari. Hist.,
XVIII. , 203, 204.

2 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 318; Donne, Corre-
spondence of George 111., I., 164.

274 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

time as the king by proclamation or order of council
shall see fit to open it.1 This he may do when
satisfied that " peace and obedience to the laws"
have been restored and the tea paid for; and the
governor shall have certified that the revenue offi-
cers have been indemnified for what they suffered
in the accompanying "riots and insurrections."
Even coasting vessels carrying food and fuel "for
the necessary use and sustenance of the inhabitants
of the said town of Boston" were forbidden to
deliver their cargoes without a pass, "after having
been duly searched" by the custom-house officers
"at Marblehead, in the port of Salem." The
English ships of war were required to maintain the
blockade.

Another statute, known as the "regulating act,"
remodelled the constitution of Massachusetts. The
practical annulment of a royal charter by the
legislature was an anomaly in English jurisprudence.
By this act the members of the council, or upper
house, hitherto annually chosen by the general as-
sembly, were to be appointed, as in the royal prov-
inces, by the king under his sign-manual, and to
hold office during his pleasure. After July 1 the
attorney - general, inferior judges, justices of the
peace, sheriffs, and all other court officers were
to be appointed and removed by the governor.
Even the consent of the council was not required
except for removal of a sheriff. In the same way

1 14 George III., chap. xix. (March 31, 1774).

1774]

COERCION

275

the chief justice and superior judges were to be
nominated; but these were to hold office during
the king's pleasure and to be removed only at his
command. This drastic law did not stop here.
Henceforth, except for elections, no town-meeting
might be called without the governor's written
consent; and in no case might a town -meeting
transact any business not expressed in the governor's
leave. Furthermore, grand and petty jurors, hither-
to elected by the people in the various towns, hence-
forth were to be "summoned and returned by the
sheriffs of the respective counties." Thus at one
stroke the free institutions which had flourished for
nearly a century and a half were abrogated and a
centralized system put in their place. The members
of the assembly might still be chosen by the people ;
and this was almost the only democratic feature of
the constitution left untouched.1

On its face, the third act was designed to secure a
fair trial to crown officers or magistrates accused of
murder or other capital offences. When the gov-
ernor was satisfied that " an indifferent trial cannot
be had within the said province," he might send
persons indicted for such crimes (with the witnesses) ,
if committed while engaged in suppressing riots or
enforcing the revenue laws, to some other colony
or to Great Britain to be tried.2

These three statutes constituted the coercive

1 14 George III., chap. xlv. (May 20, 1774).
2 14 George III., chap, xxxix. (May 20, 1774).

276 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

system. To aid in their enforcement, a fourth act
legalized the quartering of troops upon the in-
habitants.1 With it as a fifth "intolerable" law
is usually classed the so-called "Quebec act." By
this statute2 a civil government was provided for the
domain ceded by France in 1763. The province of
Quebec, or Canada, was extended so as to embrace
the vast region of the future Northwest Territory.
In effect the Roman Catholic religion, that of the
great majority of the inhabitants, was established.
The English criminal law, with trial by jury, was
sanctioned ; but in all civil suits the old French law,
without jury trial, was retained. A highly cen-
tralized system of administration — in spirit not
unlike that of the French regime — was set up.
Except for local purposes, the power of taxation was
reserved by Parliament. All other legislative au-
thority subject to the royal veto was vested in a
council appointed by the crown.

The Quebec act was regarded at the time as one
of the most serious grievances of the colonies. It
was denounced as a sop to the Canadian people,
intended to detach them from the common American
cause, and as an object-lesson in despotic govern-
ment such as would satisfy the rulers of Great
Britain. The Declaration of Independence char-
acterized it as an act " for abolishing the free
system of English Laws in a neighboring Prov-

1 14 George III., chap. liv. (June 2, 1774).

2 14 George III., chap, lxxxiii.

1774]

COERCION

277

ince, establishing therein an Arbitrary government,
and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule into these colonies."

Considering the measures which preceded and ac-
companied this statute, it is, indeed, not surprising
that the people looked upon the Quebec act with
suspicion; that they believed it concealed some
sinister or vindictive motive of the ministry. Yet,
as a matter of fact, its purpose was entirely mis-
understood. Of all the grievances of the times this
one was the least substantial. Careful research1 has
clearly demonstrated that the Quebec act was the
result of a policy which had slowly been evolved
without regard to the troubles in the other colonies.
It expressed the honest efforts of British statesmen
to solve the difficult problem of governing the
dominion taken from France in 1763. In the first
place, none of the colonies, least of all Virginia, had
a good claim to the western lands included within
the boundary of the new province. So far from
being designed to abolish "the free system of
English laws" in Canada, we now know that the
English law had never there been regularly put in
force, as evidently intended that it should be by
the royal proclamation of 1763. Moreover, as early
as 1768 the ministry had become convinced that it
would be wise to continue the French civil law in

1 Coffin, Province of Quebec and Early American Revolution,
39 et seq.

278 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1765

that province. An investigation by the crown law-
yers was then ordered, and eventually upon their
reports the Quebec act was based.

The facts are much the same regarding the with-
holding of representative institutions in Canada.
There was no design to establish arbitrary govern-
ment there or to attack the liberties of the other
colonies. Already in 1765 the question of granting
an assembly was being earnestly considered. In
1772, Solicitor - General Wedderburn reported that
the establishment of such an assembly was inex-
pedient because of the " peculiar difficulties present-
ed by the religion of the great mass of the inhabi-
tants." The debates on the Quebec act clearly
disclose the real motives for withholding repre-
sentation. It was felt (1) that "it would be unjust
to exclude the French Roman Catholic majority,
and (2) that it would be unsafe to admit it. At-
torney-General Thurlow asserted without contra-
diction that no one had claimed that it was at
present fit to give an assembly to Canada ; and Fox
admitted that he would not explicitly state that such
a step was then expedient." 1

Regarding the motive for extending the boun-
daries of Quebec to the Ohio and Mississippi, the
Declaration of Independence seems equally at fault.
According to Coffin, this step was taken, "not
through invidious designs against the other colonies,
but mainly, if not entirely, from considerations
Coffin, in Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1894, p. 276.

1774]

COERCION

2?9

connected solely with the Indians and the fur-trade.
... It can clearly be established that the steadily
increasing anarchical character of the conditions in
these regions had by 1774 convinced the author-
ities that they should be annexed to some one
civil government," and almost of necessity the
province selected was Canada.1 Furthermore, the
same writer has shown that the Canadians were by
no means highly gratified by the provisions of the
Quebec act continuing the old French civil law and
virtually establishing the Roman church. On the
contrary, partly through ignorance of its real pur-
pose, it tended to alienate them from the Brit-
ish government. They dreaded a restoration of
oppressive feudal burdens and compulsory tithes;
for the abuses of the old regime had extended even
to the New World. In fact, the act, however well
meant, proved ill-timed and disastrous. It in-
creased the discontent of the English colonists,
and it created a race-antagonism in Canada which
was destined to bear evil fruit in after days.2

lCoffin,in Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1894, pp. 278, 279; Coffin,
Province of Quebec and Early American Revolution, 398-432.
3 Coffin, Province of Quebec, 488 et seq., 540 et seq.

CHAPTER XVI

THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

(i774)

HE coercive acts were carried through Parlia

of America, like Barre and Conway, voted for the
Boston port bill. On the government side the most
violent counsels were given. According to Charles
Van, the 1 * offense in the Americans "was "flagi-
tious"; the "town of Boston ought to be knocked
about their ears, and destroyed. . . . You will never
meet with that proper obedience to the laws of
this country, until you have destroyed that nest
of locusts."2 Lord George Germain favored the
regulating act in the interest of class - privilege.
" Put an end to their town-meetings," he cried. " I
would not have men of a mercantile cast every day
collecting themselves together and debating about
political matters; I would have them follow their
occupations as merchants, and not consider them-
selves as ministers of that country."3

1 For the debates, see Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVII.,
1 163 et seq.; Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 6-61,
66-104, 111-129, 165-216; Annual Register, 1774.

2 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVII., 1178.
9 Ibid., 1 195.

majorities.1 Even friends

280

/

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 281

But the coercive measures were not adopted
without solemn warnings from an enlightened oppo-
sition. The port bill, said Rose Fuller, cannot be
carried "into execution without a military force."
In reply, Lord North said he "should not hesitate
a moment" to use military force to compel "due
obedience to the laws of this country." The bill for
transporting persons for trial called out a protest
in the Lords. Chatham, who had now returned to
his place in that body and was taking deep interest
in American affairs, spoke with his old-time power
against the bill for quartering troops on the colonists.1

Burke agreed with Franklin,2 that it would be wise
to go back to the state of things before the Grenville
policy was tried. In supporting a motion for the
repeal of the tea act he delivered his famous speech
on taxation. "Revert to your old principles," he
advised; leave "America, if she has taxable matter
in her, to tax herself. I am not here going into a
distinction of rights, nor attempting to mark their
boundaries. I do not enter into these metaphysical
distinctions. I hate the very sound of them. Leave
the Americans as they anciently stood, and these
distinctions, born of our unhappy contest, will die
along with it. . . . Be content to bind America by
laws of trade; you have always done it. Let this
be your reason for binding their trade. Do not

1 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVII., 1170, 1172, 1320-1325;

Rogers, Protests of the Lords, II., 146-148.

2 Franklin, Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 432.

282 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

burthen them with taxes; you "were not used to
do so from the beginning. Let this be your rea-
son for not taxing. These are the arguments of
states and kingdoms. Leave the rest to the
schools ; for there only they may be discussed with
safety/'1

The advice of Burke came too late. The die was
cast, and the king was "infinitely pleased." 2 The
first response of America to the port bill left small
doubt as to the consequences of his folly.3 A copy
of the act reached Boston on May 10. Two days
later a meeting of the committee of correspondence
with the committees of eight other towns addressed
the committees in all the provinces, recommending
a suspension of trade with Great Britain, and
"suggesting that the single question was whether
the other colonies would consider Boston as suf-
fering for the common cause, and resent the injury
inflicted on her." 4 The next day a letter was sent
out by the town-meeting making the same sug-
gestion of commercial non - intercourse in these
words: "Voted, Nem. Con. that it is the opinion of
this Town, that if the other Colonies come into a
joint resolution, to stop all importations from Great
Britain & Exportations to Great Britain, and every
part of the ' Vest Indies, till the Act for Blocking up

1 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVII,, 1264, 1265.

2 Donne, Correspondence of George III., I., 178, 181, 182, 183,

3 Cushing, Transition to Commonwealth, 54 et seq.

4 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 321, 322.

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 283

this Harbor be repealed, the same will prove the
Salvation of North America & her Liberties."1

On the very same day General Gage, coming to
supersede Hutchinson as governor, entered the
harbor, bringing with him, or soon followed by,
four more regiments. Promptly on June 1 the
blockade of the port was put in force by a cordon of
British ships, and the official records were removed
to Salem, which a royal order had made the seat of
government.2 A few days later troops and artillery
were landed unmolested, and from this time forward
Boston was virtually in the hands of a hostile army.
"Cannon were planted on its eminences and at the
single outlet into the country ; troops daily paraded
the streets, and the place wore the aspect of a
garrison." 3

Starvation threatened the town, for directly or
indirectly its people were mainly dependent upon
commerce for a living. Food and fuel soon became
scarce and dear; work was hard to find; the ship-
yards and rope -walks were idle; house - building
stopped for want of materials. A committee of the
town-meeting adopted various expedients for giving
employment to the poor : a brick-yard was opened on
the neck; streets were repaved; and " wool, flax, and
cotton were bought to give labor to poor women";
leather "was furnished to the shoemakers and iron

1 Boston Town Records, ijjo-1777 , 174. .

2 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 245, 331.
8 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 325.

284 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

to the blacksmiths, and their finished work taken
in payment." 1 The appeal for aid found a generous
response.2 Windham, Connecticut, sent a flock of
sheep; Marblehead granted free use of her harbor,
wharves, and warehouses; a gift of rice came from
South Carolina. Money was contributed by various
cities, including New York, London, and even
Montreal. The Quakers of Pennsylvania sent £2540.
A subscription-list in Fairfax County, Virginia, was
headed by George Washington, who gave ^50. 3

Thus the port bill and the other coercive acts as
they were successively announced drew the colonists
together in neighborly sympathy. At the same
time they served as a powerful revolutionary agent ;
for the discussion of the Boston proposal of com-
mercial non-intercourse as a means of retaliation
speedily led to a continental union. The formation
of committees of correspondence went on swiftly,
and from various quarters came the demand for
a congress. In New York and Philadelphia the
policy of suspending trade with Great Britain with-
out general consultation was not received with
favor ; and in each of these cities a committee of the
people recommended the appointment of delegates
to a general congress.4 The Quakers shrank from

1 Boston Town Records, iyyo-iyyy , 175 etseq.; Sparks, Men
Who Made the Nation, 75.
'Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 4th series, IV., 1-278.
1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 326.
4 Force, American Archives, 4th series, L, 295 et seq., 332,

341-347-

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 285

any course which might provoke an appeal to arms ;
while in both New York and Pennsylvania there was
already evidence of the existence of a powerful
loyalist party.

Virginia was first to take definite action. May
24, 1774, the house of burgesses, in resolutions
drafted by Jefferson, set aside June 1 — when the
port bill went into effect — 4 'as a day of fasting,
humiliation, and prayer; devoutly to implore the
Divine interposition, for averting the heavy calamity
which threatens destruction to our civil rights, and
the evils of civil war; to give us one heart and one
mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper means,
every injury to American rights ; and that the minds
of his Majesty and his Parliament may be inspired
from above with wisdom, moderation, and justice,
to remove from the loyal people of America all
cause of danger, from a continued pursuit of meas-
ures pregnant with their ruin."1

Two days later, inasmuch as this paper reflected
"highly upon his majesty and the parliament of
Great Britain," Dunmore dissolved the house. At
the Raleigh tavern, May 27, the burgesses, no longer
acting as an official legislative body, adopted a res-
olution recommending an annual congress of all the
colonies, "to deliberate on those general measures
which the united interests of America may from
time to time require." This was sent to the other
assemblies asking their concurrence; and a con-

1 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 350.

VOL. VIII. — 20

286 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1754

vention of delegates from the several counties of the
province was called to meet at Williamsburg on
the first day of the following August.1

The first response came from Rhode Island,
where delegates were chosen June tg. At Salem,
two days later, the Massachusetts house elected
five delegates to a continental congress to be held in
Philadelphia on the first day of September. With
the designation of the time and place for the meeting
the call for the congress was now complete. During
the next two months — while the people were in-
tensely excited by the passage of the regulating act
and the proceedings of Gage in putting it in force —
similar action was taken by ten other colonies.

The delegates were selected in various ways.2
In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island they were
chosen by the legislature; in Massachusetts by the
lower house. Sometimes they were appointed in
conventions or provincial congresses of town or
county delegates called for the purpose, as in New
Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Vir-
ginia, and North Carolina. In Connecticut they
were chosen by the committee of correspondence
under the authority of the assembly; in South
Carolina by a public meeting of inhabitants of the
province held in Charleston, whose action the as-
sembly ratified. New York, where party antag-
onism was growing bitter, was irregularly and im-

1 Force, Am. Archives, 4th series, I., 350, 351, 416; Campbell,
Virginia, 573. 2 Journals of Congress, I., 2 et seq.

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 287

perfectly represented. In seven wards of the city
five delegates were elected " by duly certified polls,
taken by proper persons." These same deputies
were approved by the districts in Westchester and
Dutchess and by the city and county of Albany.
Separate delegates were sent by Suffolk, Orange, and
Kings. The rest of the province was unrepresented.1
This body, later called the First Continental Con-
gress, began its work in Carpenters' Hall, Phila-
delphia, September 5, 1774. It was composed,
when complete, of fifty -five members from twelve
colonies. Among them were many of the ablest
men of the country: Stephen Hopkins from Rhode
Island; Roger Sherman and Silas Deane from Con-
necticut; John Adams and Samuel Adams from
Massachusetts; James Duane and John Jay from
New York; Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, and
Thomas Miflin from Pennsylvania; Caesar Rodney,
George Read, and Thomas McKean from Delaware ;
Henry Middleton, Christopher Gadsden, and the
two Rutledges from South Carolina; and from
Virginia an illustrious group comprising Peyton
Randolph, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison,
Edmund Pendleton, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick
Henry, and George Washington. One, Stephen
Hopkins, had taken part in the Albany convention
just twenty years before; eight were in the Stamp-
Act Congress;2 but very few of the others had

1 Journals of Congress, I., 4, 9, 15.

2 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 360.

1

288 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

ever seen one another before coming to Philadel-
phia.

Not the least important result of the congress was
the broadening influence produced by the personal
contact of its members. A rare opportunity for
social intercourse was afforded. Philadelphia was
the richest and most cultivated city in America.
Under the genial glow of its lavish hospitality,
sectional, political, and religious prejudice became
softened or melted away entirely. The deputies
were banqueted by the city and by the Pennsylvania
assembly, and a ceaseless round of entertainments
was provided for them in private houses. During
his fifty-four days in Philadelphia, Washington was
suffered to dine but nine times at his lodgings. John
Dickinson drove into the city " day after day in his
coach drawn by four white horses to take delegates
out to his beautiful country home where they
could dine and talk politics." 1

In particular it is enlightening to observe how
the provincialism of John Adams gradually gave
way under the charm of the freer environment.
Even his sturdy puritanism became somewhat
toned down. October 9— probably for the first
time in his life — he "went, in the afternoon, to the
Romish chapel, and heard a good discourse upon
the duty of parents to their children, founded in
justice and charity. The scenery and the music are
so calculated to take in mankind, that I wonder the

1 Sparks, Men Who Made the Nation, 102.

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 289

Reformation ever succeeded." Much of his Diary
is devoted to the breakfasts and dinners to which
he was invited. "A most sinful feast again," he
exclaims on September 8; 1 'every thing which
could delight the eye or allure the taste; curds and
creams, jellies, sweetmeats of various sorts, twenty
sorts of tarts, fools, trifles, floating islands, whipped
sillabubs, . . . Parmesan cheese, punch, wine, porter,
beer, &c." Yet, after seven weeks' exposure to such
good cheer, he could write, " Took our departure, in
a very great rain, from the happy, the peaceful,
the elegant, the hospitable city of Philadelphia,"
the city of which he had formed anything but a flat-
tering opinion before this visit.1

The congress of 1774 was not thought of by the
people as a congress in the modern legislative sense.
It was rather a convention of ambassadors of sub-
ordinate, but distinct communities which had found
it needful to take counsel of one another regarding
a crisis in their common relations to the parent
state, in order, if possible, to adopt some common
plan of action. It was essentially an advisory or
consultative body. In another aspect it may be
regarded as the completion of the revolutionary
party organization of which the basis was laid in the
committees of correspondence. It undertook no
acts of " sovereign" authority ; although through the
functions which it exercised, notably the sanction
of the Association, it prepared the way for the

1 Adams, Works, II., 370, 395, 402.

290 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

gradual assumption of such authority by the con-
gress of 1775. The character of the body is dis-
closed in the instructions or powers of its members.
These instructions are very similar in substance.
The assembly of Pennsylvania, to take a typical
example, resolved:

" That there is an absolute necessity that a Con-
gress of deputies from the several colonies, be held
as soon as conveniently may be, to consult to-
gether upon the present unhappy state of the colo-
nies, and to form and adopt a plan for the purpose
of obtaining redress of American grievances, ascer-
taining American rights upon the most solid and
constitutional principles, and for establishing that
union and harmony between Great Britain and the
colonies, which is indispensably necessary to the
welfare and happiness of both." 1

At the first session of the congress an organization
was effected. Peyton Randolph was chosen presi-
dent and Charles Thompson secretary. Although
not a member, Thompson was a reputable merchant
and leader of the "liberty men" in Philadelphia.
An oath of secrecy was taken, and for seven weeks—
until October 26 — the deliberations were carried on
behind locked doors. After a long and warm dis-
cussion it was decided that each colony, small or
great, should have one vote. It was while debating
this question that Patrick Henry uttered the famous
words, " Fleets and armies and the present state of

1 Journals of Congress, I., 5.

1775] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 291

things show that government is dissolved. . . . The
distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians,
New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I
am not a Virginian, but an American." 1

No record of the debates was made, and just
what was said during the seven weeks of discussion
we shall never know. From the few incidents re-
corded by John Adams 2 and others we are able to
judge that the proceedings of the congress were often
discordant and its action far from unanimous. That
a policy of resistance rather than of concession was
adopted is due mainly to the ability and stern de-
termination of the men from Virginia and Massa-
chusetts, and especially to the political craft and or-
ganizing power of Samuel Adams. According to his
antagonist, Joseph Galloway, Adams, "though by
no means remarkable for brilliant abilities, yet is
equal to most men in popular intrigue and the
management of a faction. He eats little, drinks
little, sleeps little, thinks much, and is most decisive
and indefatigable in the pursuit of his objects. It
was this man, who, by his superior application,
managed at once the faction in Congress at Phila-
delphia and the factions in New England." 3 On the
second day, though a strict Congregationalist,
Adams moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian
clergyman, should open the session with prayer. " I
am no bigot," he said ; " I can hear a prayer from a

1 Adams, Works, II., 366-368. 2 Ibid., 365-402.

3 Galloway, Historical and Political Reflections, 67.

292 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

man of piety and virtue, who is at the same time
a friend of his country."1 This proved to be a
master-stroke of political finesse in disarming re-
ligious prejudice. Again, it was through Adams's
planning that on September 17 the revolutionary
resolves of the Suffolk convention were placed
before congress. These declared that " no obedience
is due from this Province to either or any part" of
the recent acts of Parliament ; advised the meeting
of a provincial congress ; directed the tax-collectors
to pay no money into the treasury until the con-
stitution should be restored; denounced the "man-
damus" councillors who refused to resign as "ob-
stinate and incorrigible enemies of this country";
and virtually threatened armed resistance if the
obnoxious measures were enforced. The resolves
were published by congress together with its own
resolutions approving the course taken by Boston
and the convention in resisting the parliamentary
measures.2

The crisis in the deliberations came September
28, when congress found itself at the parting of the
ways, and had to choose between compromise and
revolution. Joseph Galloway, leader of the party
of conciliation — of those who censured the minis-
terial policy but who at all hazards would oppose
independence — presented a " Plan for a Proposed
Union between Great Britain and the Colonies."

1 Adams, Works, II., 368, 369.

2 Journals of Congress, I., 9-14.

1774] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 293

It provided for a president-general to be appointed
by the crown, and a grand council composed of
deputies chosen every three years by the legislatures
of the several colonies and meeting at least once a
year. The council was to be "an inferior and
distinct branch of the British parliament.' ' Its
acts were to be subject to the veto of Parliament,
while in turn it might reject the measures of Parlia-
ment relating to the colonies.1 It was a worthy and
sagacious effort to preserve the empire and to pre-
vent the calamity of civil war. It represented, it is
said, the views of Golden of New York, and Frank-
lin of New Jersey, and it was vigorously supported by
such men as James Duane and John Jay. Edward
Rutledge thought it "almost a perfect plan"; and
it is highly significant that it was defeated only by
a majority of one in a vote of eleven colonies.2

The great acts of the congress are the Declaration
of Rights and Grievances and the Association. By
the Declaration, in compact and noble phrase, a
long list of grievances recalling every phase of the
unhappy controversy of ten years is set forth; and
the rights claimed by the "inhabitants of the
English colonies in North America, by the immu-
table laws of nature, the principles of the English
constitution, and the several charters or compacts"
are asserted. Thirteen acts of Parliament are ,
formally enumerated as being "infringements and •

1 Galloway, Candid Examination, 53.

2 Adams, Works, II., 387, n.

294 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

violations of the rights of the colonists " whose
repeal was ''essentially necessary in order to restore
harmony" between them and Great Britain. In
particular the five coercive acts are condemned as
"impolitick, unjust, and cruel, as well as uncon-
stitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of
American rights." 1

The Association was designed to put in force the
suspension of trade with Great Britain which con-
gress had already resolved upon. In behalf of
themselves and the inhabitants of the colonies rep-
resented, to obtain redress of grievances the dep-
uties solemnly declare that after December 1, 1774,
they will neither import nor consume tea or any
other British goods; nor will they export goods to
Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies after
September 10, 1775. Furthermore, " we will neither
import nor purchase, any slave imported after the
first day of December next; after which time, we
will wholly discontinue the slave trade." Frugality,
industry, and domestic manufactures are encour-
aged. To enforce the agreement, in every county,
city, and town a committee is to be chosen, " whose
business it shall be attentively to observe the con-
duct of all persons," and if any one violates the
Association, forthwith to cause the truth "to be
published in the gazette," to the end that the foes
to the rights of British America may be "publicly

1 Journals of Congress, I., 19-22; MacDonald, Select Charters,
356-361.

1775] FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 295

known" and "universally contemned." The com-
mittees of correspondence in the respective colonies
are charged frequently to " inspect the entries of their
custom-houses," and to keep each other informed
regarding all matters touching the Association.1

In the history of the American nation the Asso-
ciation of 1774 holds an honorable place. It is
virtually the beginning of the federal union. It
is the only thing resembling at all a written con-
stitution which the people had until the Articles
of Confederation were finally ratified nearly seven
years later.

Besides the two organic acts already considered,
congress presented a petition to the king; an ad-
dress to the people of Quebec inviting them to
send delegates to the congress called for the follow-
ing year, both drafted by Dickinson; an address
to the people of Great Britain, of which Jay was the
author; and a memorial to the people of the colonies.
All these papers are marked by sobriety, dignity,
and power. When laid before Parliament in 1775,
Chatham declared that for "solidity of reason, force
of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a com-
plication of difficult circumstances, no nation or
body of men, can stand in preference to the general
congress at Philadelphia." 2

1 Journals of Congress, I., 23-26; MacDonald, Select Charters,
362-367.

2 Journals of Congress, I., 26-49; Cobbett-Hansard, Pari.
Hist., XVIII., 155, n.

CHAPTER XVII

THE APPEAL TO ARMS
(I774-I775)

ITHIN six months after the adjournment of

Y Y the First Continental Congress, the Association
of 1774 was ratified by all the colonies except
Georgia and New York. As in the case of choosing
delegates, this action was taken in conventions,
provincial congresses, or regular legislative assem-
blies. At the same time local committees were
everywhere appointed to enforce the Association.1
Even before it was adopted the terrorism of loyalists
had begun. Tarring and feathering was becoming
the order of the day. The time had now come
when men must choose sides. Loyalists were bitter-
ly stigmatized as Tories and traitors, and the cause
of liberty was sullied by acts of intolerance and
persecution — the inevitable accompaniments of rev-
olution.2

In Georgia the patriotic party was unable to gain
acceptance of the Association; but it was ratified

1 Force, American Archives , 4th series, I., 993, 1023, 1109, 1124,
1 1 58; Dunmore's letter, in Hart, Contemporaries, II., 439.

2 Fisher, True Am. Revolution, 155 et seq.

296

1774]

APPEAL TO ARMS

297

by forty-five of the deputies to the provincial con-
gress which met at Savannah on March 18, 1775.
A motion of approval was defeated in the New York
assembly, but that body did not abandon the
American cause. The papers adopted by it, and
forwarded to Edmund Burke, its agent in England,
were conceived in much the same spirit as were those
of congress. The remonstrance to the commons
"was found to be so emphatic in its claims of rights
that the ministers opposed and prevented its re-
ception." 1 Furthermore, in both Georgia and New
York local committees of inspection were created.

The appeal to arms seemed unavoidable; yet
even at this late hour the American leaders were
resolved to use force, if force must be employed,
not to set up independence, but to gain a redress
of grievances.2 In October, 1774, Washington
wrote that independence is not "desired by any
thinking man in all North America." Yet in the
Virginia convention two months before he had said,
"I will raise one thousand men, subsist them at
my own expense, and march myself at their head
for the relief of Boston." December 22 he is re-
ported as already in command in the Northern Neck
of "one thousand volunteers, as fine fellows and
good woodsmen as any on our continent";3 and

4 Hildreth, United States, III., 56, 65.

2 Opposite view in Fisher, True Am. Revolution, 169 et seq.

3 Washington, Writings (Ford's ed.), II., 440, 444; Adams,
Works, II., 360; Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, IV.,
187; Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 1145.

298 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

January 17, 1775, in his county of Fairfax, he pre-
sided at a meeting which enrolled the militia and
voted a tax for the purchase of arms and to pay for
the service of the men.

Twelve days later Samuel Adams declared that
"one regular attempt" of the ministers to subdue a
colony would "open a quarrel which will never be
closed, till what some of them affect to apprehend,
and we sincerely deprecate, will take effect. "* In
still more emphatic words — five weeks before
Lexington — John Adams pronounced the assertion
that the people of Massachusetts were eager for
independence "as great a slander on the province
as ever was committed to writing." %

Throughout the continent preparations were
making for armed resistance to the coercive acts.
Congress had given warning that the "schemes
agitated against these colonies have been so con-
ducted, as to render it prudent that you should
extend your views to mournful events, and be, in
all respects, prepared for every contingency." 3 The
people responded by organizing military companies
and supplying themselves with arms and ammunition.
In Massachusetts in particular affairs were moving
swiftly to a crisis. The people were resolved that
government under the regulating act should not
be set up. Many of the "mandamus" councillors

1 Wells, Samuel Adams, II., 274.

2 "Novanglus," in Boston Gazette, March 13, 1775.

3 Journals of Congress, I., 38.

*775]

APPEAL TO ARMS

299

provided for by that act were forced to decline or to
resign their commissions; courts were prevented
from sitting; in Boston jurors refused to be sworn;
and Chief -Justice Oliver was compelled to give up
his office as president of the council.1

Meanwhile the popular anger was stirred by the
conduct of Gage. In June he issued a proclamation
which Washington condemned as "more becoming a
Turkish bashaw, than an English governor."2 It
called the non-importation agreement an "unwar-
rantable, hostile, and traitorous combination"; its
subscribers "declared and open enemies of the
King, Parliament, and the Kingdom"; and enjoined
" all Magistrates and other officers within the several
counties in this Province, . . . to apprehend and
secure for trial all and every person" who may
publish or sign or invite others to sign the aforesaid
"Covenant." 3 This futile menace only increased
the number of those who hastened to subscribe the
agreement. Alarmed at the hostile attitude of
the province, Gage removed the seat of government
from Salem back to Boston, and on September 1
took a step which came near precipitating a bloody
conflict. By his order a body of troops seized the
stock of powder belonging to the province, stored
on Quarry Hill "in Charlestown bounds" near Med-
ford, and carried it to the castle.4 At the same

1 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 764.

2 Washington, Writings (Ford's ed.), II., 424.

3 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 491,492.
4 Essex Gazette, September 6, 1774.

30o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

time two field pieces were brought off from Cam-
bridge.

The news of the seizure caused great excitement.
The next morning thousands of freeholders, leaving
their guns in the rear, advanced to Cambridge,
where they compelled several of the new councillors
to resign.1 The militia of Worcester County and the
volunteers of Hampshire County started for Boston.
Incensed by the additional rumor that the war-
ships had fired on the town, killing several persons,
Israel Putnam summoned the militia of Connecti-
cut to take up arms, and thousands responded to
his call. But all these companies were stopped by
express riders from Boston, reporting that at present
no action was to be taken.2 Against the remon-
strance of the selectmen the governor gave further
offence by fortifying the Neck, the only entrance
to Boston on the land side. This called forth a
protest from the Suffolk County convention at
Milton.3

The first Massachusetts assembly since the regu-
lating act took effect had been summoned to meet
at Salem, October 5, 1774; but fearing that the
mandamus councillors would not be suffered to take
their seats, Gage issued a proclamation counter-
manding the call.4 Disregarding the proclamation,
held to be irregular, many of the representatives

Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885), IV., 55.

2 Ibid., 56, 57.

3 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 777. 4 Ibid, 809.

1774]

APPEAL TO ARMS

301

met at Salem at the appointed time. After wait-
ing two days, the governor not appearing, they re-
solved themselves into a provincial congress, and
a few days later adjourned to Concord, where John
Hancock was chosen president and Benjamin Lin-
coln secretary.

This provincial congress, which soon removed to
Cambridge, proceeded to form a military organiza-
tion. A committee of safety was appointed with
power to call out the militia. Other committees
were raised to put the province in a state of defence
and to procure military stores. Three generals were
chosen; the towns were directed to provide them-
selves with arms and ammunition ; and the militia
were ordered to choose company and regimental
officers and to perfect themselves in discipline ; while
one-fourth of their number — the "minute -men" —
were to be ready to march at a moment's no-
tice.1

The acts of the first provincial congress, like those
of its successor, had all the force of law in the
province. It was formed according to the provisions
of the charter governing the choice of the house of
representatives, but it sat without a council. In
vain Gage denounced its proceedings as illegal. In-
deed, his functions as civil governor were now
practically at an end : the royal courts were suspend-

1 Journals of the Mass. Provincial Congress, 7, 23, 32-35;
Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 829 et seq. See
especially Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety, 10 et seq.

VOL. via. — 21

302 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

ed, the council was destroyed, and the lesser execu-
tive bodies took their direction from the provincial
congress. Therefore Gage was obliged more and
more to fall back on his authority as commander of
the army. Thus the revolution was practically
inaugurated in Massachusetts.1 «

A last opportunity was now given the British
government to choose between the ways which led
either to peace or civil war. The ministers did not
hesitate a minute to undertake the forcible subjuga-
tion of the colonies, and in the newly elected Parlia-
ment they found themselves sustained by an over-
whelming majority. The long struggle of Wilkes for
constitutional right was, indeed, crowned with suc-
cess, and he was allowed to take his seat in the com-
mons unopposed. But popular sentiment, so far
as an imperfect representation and a feeble press
could give it expression, seemed strongly in favor
of coercion. Gage had suggested that it might be
well "to cut the colonies adrift, and leave them to
anarchy and repentance." The idea was hateful to
the king. "The New England governments are
now in a state of rebellion,' * he said to North;
"blows must decide whether they are to be subject
to this country or independent." 2

The petition of congress, with the other papers
relating to America, was laid before Parliament,
January 19, 1775. The next day Chatham moved

1 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 829 et seq.
1 Donne, Correspondence of George III., I., 214.

1775] APPEAL TO ARMS

an address to the king for "immediate orders" to
remove the forces from the town of Boston as soon
as practicable. At once the way must be opened
for conciliation; "an hour now lost may produce
years of calamity," Though his motion was sup-
ported by Shelburrte and Camden, it was rejected
by a vote of nearly three to one. "Nothing," said
the king, "can be more calculated to bring the
Americans to a due submission." 1

Chatham's efforts to save the empire did not end
here. February i he brought forward a scheme for
reconciliation which was liberal in spirit though re-
quiring mutual concessions: all the obnoxious acts
were to be repealed ; no tax for revenue was ever to
be demanded "from British freemen in America"
without "common consent" given in the provincial
assemblies. In return, all British subjects in the
colonies were required to acknowledge the " supreme
legislative authority and superintending power" of
Parliament. To make this acknowledgment the
delegates of the Continental Congress were to as-
semble, and they were required to grant to the king
"a certain perpetual revenue," to be placed at the
disposal of Parliament. "Chatham exerted him-
self on this occasion with renewed and remarkable
vigor; but, in spite of all his efforts, after a warm
and very pointed debate, his bill was refused the
courtesy of lying on the table, and contrary to the

1 Donne, Correspondence of George III., I., 225; Cobbett-
Hansard, Pari. Hist,, XVIII., 74 et seq., 149 et seq., 160.

304 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

usual course, was rejected by a vote of two to one
at the first reading." 1

Some days later Lord North himself astonished
his friends by submitting a plan for conciliation.
He proposed that when any colony, through its
legislature, shall make provision for contributing its
"proportion to the common defence," and "shall
engage to make provision also for the support of
the Civil Government, and the Administration of
Justice, in such Province," it "will be proper, if
such proposal shall be approved" by the king and
Parliament, to " forbear" laying any tax upon it
except for the regulation of commerce. The meas-
ure was a mere palliative, sure to be rejected in
America, and not satisfactory to the ministerial
party. Nevertheless, out of deference to the prime-
minister, on February 27 it was adopted by a large
majority.2

In his heart Lord North distrusted the very pol-
icy which he represented. Already, on February 9,
at his instance, both houses had presented an ad-
dress to the king, declaring that rebellion existed in
Massachusetts and pledging their aid in subduing it.
The next day he asked leave to introduce the bill for
the "New England restraining Act," saying that
"as the Americans had refused to trade with this

1 Cobbett - Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVIII. , 198-203 et seq.;
Hildreth, United States, III., 61.

2 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 1597-1622 (the de-
bates) .

1775] APPEAL TO ARMS

3°5

Kingdom, it was but just that we should not suffer
them to trade with any other nation."1

While this measure was pending, Edmund Burke
delivered his great speech on conciliation. Instead
of seeking a revenue he advised Parliament to admit
the "people of our colonies into an interest in the
constitution.' ' "From six capital sources: descent,
form of government, religion in the northern prov-
inces, manners in the southern, education, the re-
moteness of situation from the first mover of govern-
ment — from all these causes a fierce spirit of
liberty has grown up. It looks to me narrow and
pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal
justice to this great public contest. I do not know
the method of drawing up an indictment against a
whole people." 2

Burke's warning went unheeded. March 13,
1775, disregarding the protests of British merchants,
the restraining act3 received the royal assent. By
this statute the trade of New England was con-
fined to Great Britain, Ireland, and the British
West Indies; and its people were cut off from the
northern fisheries, one of their chief means of sup-
port. In April, after news of the approval of the
acts of congress was received from America, a like
restraint was put upon the commerce of all the

1 Cobbett-Hansard, Pari. Hist., XVIII., 221-299.

2 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 1745 et seq.

8 15 George III., chap. x. Debates, in Cobbett-Hansard,
Pari. Hist., XVIII., 299 et seq.; Force, American Archives, 4th
series, I., 1621-1716.

306 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

other colonies except New York and Georgia, which
had refused to accept the Association, and North
Carolina, which the ministers had been led to believe
would be won over. All petitions for conciliation
were slighted. William Howe, with Clinton and
Burgoyne, was sent out to reinforce Gage, and with
him also went Lord Howe as commander of the
naval force. But before the two brothers — "bear-
ing the sword and the olive-branch" — could reach
America, the first blood of the Revolution had been
shed on Lexington green.

The second provincial congress of Massachusetts
met at Cambridge, February 1, 17 7 5 -1 Under its
authority the committee of safety — whose leading
spirits were now John Hancock and Joseph Warren
— made vigorous effort to put the province in a
state of defence. Arms were distributed, provisions
purchased, and military stores laid up. Express
riders were appointed to call out the militia in case
the troops should take the field. This activity was
stimulated by the news from Parliament. Congress
then determined to raise an army, and appointed a
day of fasting and prayer. Although Gage hesi-
tated to act on the rash suggestions of Dartmouth,
that the colonists should be disarmed, he sent out
expeditions to seize the military stores. A com-
pany of troops, ordered to Salem to bring off some
brass cannon said to be deposited there (February
26), narrowly escaped a combat with the people,

1 Force, American Archives, 4th series, I., 1323 et seq.

1775]

APPEAL TO ARMS

307

mainly through the good sense of the officer in
command.

Gage now determined to send a secret expedi-
tion to destroy the magazines at Concord, a village
eighteen miles northwest of Boston. To accom-
plish this task, on the night of April 18 Lieutenant-
Colonel Smith set out with eight hundred men. The
secret was not well kept, and William Dawes and
Paul Revere were despatched to give the alarm.1
About daylight the troops reached Lexington, a small
town twelve miles from Boston. On the common
near the church sixty or seventy of the " minute-
men" under Captain Parker were drawn up. Ac-
cording to evidence which American historians have
usually accepted as conclusive, Major Pit cairn com-
manded the provincials to lay down their arms and
disperse. When the order was not promptly obeyed,
the regulars began firing, and soon eight of the
Americans lay dead or dying upon the green, while
ten others were wounded.2 After the battle the
provincial congress of Massachusetts ordered de-
positions to be taken and a narrative prepared, with
a view to fixing the responsibility for the commence-
ment of hostilities. Of the sixty-two eye-witnesses,
many of them members of Captain Parker's com-
pany, who testified regarding the fight at Lexington,
all but one swore that the British began firing at the
command of an officer before the minute-men had

1 Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety, 13; Fro thin gham,
Siege of Boston, 57. 2 Ibid., 56-64.

308 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

made any resistance. Nevertheless, such ex parte
evidence, from the very nature of the circumstances,
is not decisive. Incidentally, its weakness is in part
disclosed by a British soldier who deposed that he
took part in the action, "but which party fired first,
I cannot exactly say, as our troops rushed on shout-
ing, and huzzaing, previous to the firing, which was
continued . . ., so long as any of the provincials were
to be seen." 1 Moreover, Major Pitcairn — an honor-
able man, not at all likely unprovoked to order a
murderous assault upon peaceful citizens — " insisted
upon it to the day of his death, that the colonists
fired first ; and that he commanded not to fire, and
endeavoured to stay and stop the firing after it
began." 2 At any rate, the real responsibility for
this fatal affray mounts higher than Captain Parker
or Major Pitcairn, and rests squarely on the shoulders
of the statesmen whose fatuous policy had created
these dangerous conditions.

From Lexington the British marched on to
Concord, where a guard placed by them at the Old
North Bridge fired on a body of provincials who
approached. The fire was returned, and several men
were killed and wounded on each side.

Meanwhile the country was aroused; and when
about noon — after destroying such stores as he could
find — Colonel Smith began the return march, he

1 Journals of Congress, L, 65.

2 Diary of Ezra Stiles, in Frothingham, Siege of Boston, 62.
For the depositions, see Journals of Congress, I., 58-66,

1775]

APPEAL TO ARMS

309

found his troops menaced in flank and rear by the
provincials, who had gathered from many towns.
From the shelter of rocks, trees, and fences, during
a retreat of six miles to Lexington, an irregular but
deadly fire was poured in. The regulars showed no
lack of courage, but they were without necessary
supplies and fought at a terrible disadvantage. At
Lexington they were nearly exhausted, and probably
must soon have surrendered had they not here been
received in a hollow square by a strong force under
Lord Percy, whom Gage had sent to their relief.

After a short rest, Percy, who now had about
eighteen hundred men in his command, began the
retreat. At once the Americans renewed the attack,
and the fight did not cease until at nightfall the
harassed troops found shelter in Charlestown under
the guns of the king's ships. On this day the Amer-
icans lost about ninety men and the British three
times as many.1

Debate was thus suspended by the appeal to arms.
In its address to the " Inhabitants of Great Britain"
the provincial congress did, indeed, allege that the
"marks of ministerial vengeance have not yet de-
tached us from our royal sovereign" ; but in fact, on
April 19, 1775, the war for independence had actually
begun. The British force in Boston at once found
itself besieged by twenty thousand minute-men, who
were presently replaced by a New England army
of volunteers. The moral effect of the action was

1 Frothingham, Siege of Boston, 72-79.

3io PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

very great: from New Hampshire to Georgia the
colonies stood united. This unanimity was not
wholly spontaneous; but it was due largely to the
suddenly created revolutionary governments. In
part through greater energy and superior organiza-
tion, the patriots were everywhere able to triumph
over the loyalist opposition. Lord North's plan of
conciliation was not accepted in any colony. The
assemblies refused to desert the common cause by
acting separately, and referred the matter to the
decision of the Continental Congress.

The military spirit was fast rising. May 10 a
daring expedition under Ethan Allen, without au-
thorization even from a revolutionary congress,
seized the strong fortress of Ticonderoga, securing
a large number of cannon and a vast quantity of
military stores. Crown Point was likewise taken
without opposition. The enthusiasm aroused by these
events was not lessened by the news from Boston.
The arrival of reinforcements under Howe, Clinton,
and Burgoyne greatly augmented the army of Gage,
and he resolved to take the offensive. On the night
of June 16, to strengthen their besieging lines, the
Americans seized and fortified the heights of Charles-
town, known as Bunker Hill. The next day — after
three desperate charges, and after the powder of the
provincials had given out — the hill was taken by
the British, but at a loss of over a thousand men —
nearly one-third of the attacking force. For the
Americans, who lost about four hundred and fifty,

1775] APPEAL TO ARMS 311

the defeat had all the moral effects of a victory, for it
deepened their conviction that they would be able
to withstand the king's regulars.1

May 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress
had assembled in the state-house at Philadelphia;
and soon it assumed the functions of a national
government, which it continued to exercise for the
next six years.2 At first it acted rather as an ad-
viser of the colonies than as a body vested with
sovereign power. Thus counsel was given to New
York regarding the proper treatment of the king's
troops when they should arrive. May 26 it was
unanimously resolved that the militia of that prov-
ince should be armed and trained, "to prevent any
attempt that may be made to gain possession of
the city." The Massachusetts provincial congress,
on its application, was advised to vest the govern-
ment in an assembly and council, according to the
forms of the ancient constitution, " until a governor,
of his majesty's appointment, will consent to govern
the colony according to its charter."

Congress soon found it necessary to undertake a
sovereign function of the highest importance — the
creation of a national army. On June 14 it was
decided that continental troops should be raised.
The next day — following a suggestion of John Adams
— George Washington, of Virginia, was unanimously

1 Frothingham, Siege of Boston, 11 3-1 74.

2 A different view on this subject in Van Tyne, American
Revolution (Am. Nation, IX.), chaps, ix, xi.

312 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

selected to "command all the continental forces,
raised, or to be raised, for the defence of American
liberty."1 July 2 the man whose life and character
during the next twenty-four years were to have a
mighty influence for good in shaping the American
nation arrived in Cambridge to discharge the first
duty which that nation had laid upon him.

1 Journals of Congress, I., 69-71, 73, 80, 83.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE CASE OF THE LOYALISTS
(1763-17 7 5)

SOCIAL progress is made in two ways — by evolu-
tion and by revolution; through right reason
and through catastrophe.1 In the life of a people a
crisis may come when violence seems to be the only
means of advancement; but advancement by vio-
lence is terribly expensive in property, in morals,
and in human lives. In this regard the American
Revolution was no exception to the rule. Unlike
the French Revolution, it was mainly political and
not social: there were no frightful abuses of ancient
class privilege to redress, for the old colonial system
was in no way the result of conscious oppression.
Its cardinal principles took their rise in economic
ignorance, and very soon would have become a
dangerous hindrance to social evolution had they
been rigidly enforced.

Just here is the anomaly of the situation. The
American Revolution differs from all other revolu-

1 See the instructive paper of Andrew D. White, Evolution and
Revolution. A body of selected arguments on both sides, in
Hart, Contemporaries, II., chaps, xxiii-xxvii.

313

3i4 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

tions in the mode of its origin and in the swiftness of
the catastrophe. With astonishing perversity the
British ministry strove thoroughly to enforce the
colonial system only after it was already becom-
ing clear to thoughtful men that its principles were
false. This resolve bore the likeness of a revolu-
tion in policy by which prescriptive rights long en-
joyed were violently taken away. Meanwhile the
colonists in political education had outstripped the
Englishmen who remained at home. A fierce spirit
of liberty had sprung up. With superior knowledge
they had become exceedingly sensitive regarding
their political rights. Moreover, the new restrictive
policy was adopted just as the conditions had be-
come favorable for the development of the nascent
sentiment of union among the colonists.1 Hence it
is that in the short space of ten years the min-
isterial blunders, aggravated by the violent counsels
of extremists in America, had brought the provinces
to the verge of revolution.

While resistance was confined to debate and other
legal forms of opposition, many conservatives could
unite with the radicals in seeking a redress of griev-
ances, though denying the validity of the revolu-
tionary argument. Men like Seabury and Galloway
freely condemned the policy of Great Britain. But
when it was proposed to drop argument and seek
redress by the sword, perhaps by separation, these
and thousands of other worthy persons drew back.

1 See chaps, i. and iii. above.

1775]

LOYALIST CASE

315

When hostilities began, the people were very far
from being united, although the fact was in part
concealed; for in most places the revolutionary
party speedily got possession of the actual govern-
ment and was able to silence opposition.

The American Revolution, like every revolution,
brought earnest men face to face with tremendous
cases of conscience which had to be solved. For
revolution means violation of law, breach of alle-
giance, disturbance of the established social order.
It means a rending of family and national ties, a
wounding of sentiments which ages of historical
association have fostered. It means a vast ex-
penditure of blood and treasure and incalculable
moral and physical suffering. Is the end in view
worth the cost ? This question the American people
had to face, and the loyalists answered it emphati-
cally in the negative. Is it not clear from the nature
of the problem that they might do so and yet
challenge our respect, even our admiration? They
may have been mistaken; they may have been
opposing the march of progress; but they were not
necessarily actuated by motives less conscientious
than those which inspired their adversaries. Trium-
phant revolution is apt to cover with obloquy the
fame of many a moral hero whom history should
respect and seek to understand. Happily the pe-
riod of self-glorification is passing and the Amer-
ican student is learning to be just in his judgment on
the case of the American loyalists.

316 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1774

For ten years the opposing parties of patriots and
loyalists — of Whigs and Tories — had been gradual-
ly forming. From the very nature of the case, the
active or aggressive party, under so astute a leader
as Samuel Adams, was first to gain an effective or-
ganization, which was brought to completion by
the creation of a continental congress. Of necessity
this event at once drew more closely together all
those who for whatsoever reasons refused to take
the way of armed rebellion. "In a valid sense,
therefore, it may be said that the formation of the
great Loyalist party of the American Revolution
dates from about the time of the Congress of 1774.
Moreover, its period of greatest activity in argu-
mentative literature is from that time until the
early summer of 1776, when nearly all further use
for argumentative literature on that particular sub-
ject was brought to an end by the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. ' ' 1 In number, character, and the principles
for which it stood, the loyalist party is a fact of de-
cided interest, deserving the serious and respectful at-
tention of every student of the American Revolution.

There is no means of finding out the actual number
of Tories in any colony. At all times during the
struggle a great body of the loyalists was found in
New York3 and Pennsylvania. Timothy Pickering

'Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 295, 296. Cf. Van Tyne,

Loyalists, 3, 4.

3 Flick, Loyalism in New York (Columbia College Studies,
XIV.), 31-37 et seq.

1781] LOYALIST CASE 317

called the last named province the "enemies' coun-
try"; while John Adams declared that "New York
and Pennsylvania were so nearly divided — if their
propensity was not against us — that if New Eng-
land on one side and Virginia on the other had
not kept them in awe, they would have joined the
British. " There were many Tories in Connecticut,
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. In Virginia
they were less numerous than the Whigs; in South
Carolina they were more numerous; "while in
Georgia their majority was so great that, in 1781,
they were preparing to detach that colony from the
general movement of the rebellion, and probably
would have done so, had it not been for the em-
barrassing accident which happened to Cornwallis
at Yorktown in the latter part of that year." 1

The loyalists themselves claimed that in the
aggregate they constituted a positive majority of
the American people, and that none of the decisive
measures of the Revolution were sanctioned by a
full or fair vote of any colony. In their belief,
says Tyler, these measures " were the work of a well-
constructed and powerful political machine, set up
in each colony, in each county, in each town, and
operated with as much skill and will and unscrupu-
lousness as go into the operation of such machines
in our own time." The same historian — the first

1 Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 298, 299; Adams, Works,
X., 63. Cf. Gilbert, "Connecticut Loyalists," in Am. Hist.
Review, IV., 278 et seq.

VOL. VIII. — 22

318 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

American writer to make a just and adequate
statement of the case for the loyalists — accepts as
probably a fair estimate John Adams's opinion, ap-
proved by Thomas McKean, that about one-third
of the people were at first opposed to the Revolution.1
The large body of loyalists represented nearly
every type of character and motive, from the lowest
to the highest. Among them were virtually the
entire official class, embracing not only the mere
placemen, often incompetent and corrupt, who had
come to America to gain their fortunes, but also
native Americans like Oliver and Hutchinson, who
loved their country and had won respect and
honor in its service. The crown officers "good
and bad were the backbone of the Tory party in
America."2 Next to these were the clergy and
members of the established church, the majority of
whom were stanch loyalists. A third division
comprised the mass of those who from tradition,
circumstances, or training are usually inclined to be
conservative. Here were found very many of the
capitalistic, professional, and cultivated classes, with
all those who revered monarchy and distrusted
democratic institutions.3 College presidents like

1 Tyler, "The Party of the Loyalists," in Am. Hist. Review,
I., 24, 25; Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., 293-383, esp. 300; Adams,
Works, X., 63, 87, 110.

2 Van Tyne, Loyalists, 4; American Revolution {Am. Nation,
IX.), chap. iv.

3 On the classes of loyalists, see Flick, Loyalism in New York
{Columbia College Studies, XIV.), 31 et seq.

LOYALIST CASE

319

Cooper, of King's, and a great number of the grad-
uates of Yale, Harvard, William and Mary, and
other colonial institutions, remained loyal to Great
Britain. Among the three hundred and ten Tories
banished by Massachusetts in 1778 were sixty
graduates of Harvard. "To anyone at all familiar
with the history of colonial New England, that list
of men, denounced to exile and loss of property on
account of their opinions, will read almost like the
bead-roll of the oldest and noblest families con-
cerned in the founding and upbuilding of New
England civilization."1

Doubtless many of the Tories, like many of the
Whigs, were actuated by base motives. To their
ranks at first would naturally come those who hoped
to be on the safe side, and those who fancied that in
the inevitable triumph of the king's troops they
should be rewarded for their loyalty by a share in the
confiscated estates of the vanquished. Yet among
the two hundred thousand men and women who
eventually went into exile or who died in the strug-
gle were very many who in a just sense were true
patriots and who as devotedly as their adversaries
suffered for conscience' sake.2

The problem of the American Revolution was by
no means a simple one. Whether viewed as a ques-

1 Ellis, in Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., VII., 195; Tyler, Lit.
Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 303.

2 For the loyalists during the Revolution, see Van Tyne,
American Revolution {Am. Nation, IX.), chap. xiv.

320 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

tion of right or of expediency it had two opposite
sides, either of which might well be taken by honest
and thoughtful men. The constitutional maxim
"no taxation without representation" was accepted
as valid by both parties, but the loyalists denied
that it had been violated. As an expression of
mere law, the argument from virtual representation
is invincible,1 for the kind of representation which
then satisfied the law and the constitution was very
crude. Indeed, since the American Revolution,
and even since the reform bill of 1832, in both the
United States and England it is but slowly that the
idea of a broader and more effective representation
has prevailed ; and we are beginning to realize that
even now our system is very far from perfect.

Again, the loyalists frankly admitted that the
colonists had real grievances which ought to be re-
dressed. They were earnestly in favor of reform,
and severely censured the policy of the ministers.
Thus far there was substantial agreement among the
best Americans. Regarding the proper remedy,
however, there was not the same unanimity. The
loyalists denied the expediency of refusing to pay
taxes levied by Parliament, while they abhorred the
thought of separation. In their view, oppressive
taxes had not yet been laid; and there was no like-
lihood that such taxes ever would be imposed. It
was, therefore, unwise to risk civil war by resisting
precedents which might never be abused. Even in

1 Cf . Burgess, Political Science, II., 65-69.

1775]

LOYALIST CASE

321

the crisis of 1774 they still had faith in argument,
and, as already seen, they presented a definite
plan for conciliation. Its author, Joseph Galloway,
next to Hutchinson was the most conspicuous
loyalist in America. He had long served his colony,
Pennsylvania, as a member of the assembly, and
with Franklin he had opposed the proprietary
government and done what he could to have the
province transferred from the Penn family to the
crown.1

In 1775 Galloway published a pamphlet in de-
fence of the "Plan" which the Continental Congress
had rejected. It was many times reprinted both in
America and Europe, and it is a powerful presenta-
tion of the best loyalist argument. In the outset
he condemns the reign of terror which under the
authority of congress the Whigs had set up: "free-
dom of speech suppressed, the liberty and secrecy
of the press destroyed, the voice of truth silenced, a
lawless power established throughout the colonies"
depriving "men of their natural rights and inflict-
ing penalties more severe than death." Next he
insists that in its true nature the present contro-
versy is "a dispute between the supreme author-
ity of the state and a number of its members."
Now in every state there must be "a supreme legis-
lative authority, universal in extent" ; in the British
empire this supreme power belongs to Parliament.
The colonies are a part of that empire; and hence

1 On Galloway, see Tyler, Lit. Hist, of Am. Rev., I., 369-383.

322 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

even in cases of taxation and internal police — con-
trary to the claim of congress — they cannot be
exempt from its control and subject only to the
king.1

On the other hand, in agreement with his ad-
versaries, Galloway holds that the colonists are en-
titled to all the rights of Englishmen at home; for
"the subjects of a free state, in every part of its
dominions, ought in good policy to enjoy the same
fundamental rights and privileges." Yet the col-
onists through their representatives have not shared
the right of making laws binding upon them; but
they ought to share it "in such manner as their
circumstances admit of, whenever it shall be decent-
ly and respectfully asked for." "If the British
state, therefore, means to retain the colonies in a
due obedience to her government, it will be wisdom
in her to restore to her American subjects the enjoy-
ment of assenting to and dissenting from such bills
as shall be proposed to regulate their conduct.
Laws thus made will ever be obeyed, because by
their assent they become their own acts. It will
place them in the same condition with their brethren
in Britain, and remove all cause of complaint;
or if they should conceive any regulations incon-
venient or unjust, they will petition, not rebel.
Without this, it is easy to perceive that the union
and harmony, which is peculiarly essential to a
free society whose members are resident in regions so

Galloway, Candid Examination, 1-4, 24, 30-32.

1775] LOYALIST CASE 323

very remote from each other, cannot long subsist.
The genius, temper, and circumstances of the Amer-
icans should be also duly attended to'. No people
in the world have higher notions of liberty. It
would be impossible ever to eradicate them, should
an attempt so unjust be ever made." The colonists
must be united with Britain "upon principles of
English liberty," or they "will infallibly throw off
their connection with the mother country."1

Therefore, Galloway's remedy for the present
grievances of the colonies is — not the course of vio-
lence recommended by congress, but a liberal con-
stitutional union with the parent state. Even now,
he says, it is not too late to apply this remedy.
Reasonable petitions have never been refused a
hearing, as American demagogues have asserted.
"It is high time that this fatal delusion should be
exposed, and the good people of America disabused.
It is true that his majesty and the two houses of
parliament have treated petitions from the colonies
with neglect; but what were those petitions? . . .
They disowned the power of the supreme legislature,
to which as subjects they owe obedience." "Let
us, like men who love order and government, boldly
oppose the illegal edicts of the Congress, before it is
too late, — pull down the licentious tyranny they have
established, and dissolve their inferior committees —
their instruments to trample on the sacred laws of
your country, and your invaluable rights." When
1 Galloway, Candid Examination, 34-36, 39, 41-43.

324 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1754

this is done and peace and order restored, let a
proper petition be presented through your legal as-
semblies, and there is "no reason to doubt" that
it will be graciously received and "finally terminate
in a full redress of your grievances, and a permanent
system of union and harmony, upon principles of
liberty and safety." 1

It must be frankly admitted that the arguments
of Galloway, like those of Myles Cooper, Daniel
Leonard, and Samuel Seabury — also called out by
the proceedings of congress — were far from con-
temptible. His plan of conciliation, however just,
came too late; and even if satisfactory to the
Americans, it is very doubtful whether at any time
after the Albany convention of 1754 it would have
been acceptable to Great Britain. Certainly, in
1774 the time for conciliation was past unless Eng-
land, taking the initiative, should make prompt,
frank, and full concessions. All half-way or in-
sincere measures, such as those proposed by Lord
North, must prove utterly futile.

Making all due allowance for the alleged sinister
influence of colonial politicians, we are now able
clearly to see that the American Revolution was
justifiable for two general reasons. First, the legis-
lation of Grenville and his successors was a real
grievance. The sugar act, the stamp act, and the
Townshend revenue acts, though legal, were con-
trary to wise political policy and a violation of the

1 Galloway, Candid Examination, 48-61.

1774]

LOYALIST CASE

325

spirit of constitutional liberty which the experience
of a century had fostered in the colonies. The
effect of these acts was aggravated by the ill-judged
measures adopted to enforce them; and they were
brought into contempt by the halting policy of the
ministry.

Secondly, in the light gained by ten years' dis-
cussion, the old colonial system itself had become
a grievance. It was seen to be a check to the full
development of the American people. Hence, while
learning to be more just regarding the merits of the
loyalists, we have gained a more intelligent apprecia-
tion of the higher qualities of the men who achieved
independence. Since the problem was so hard, the
arguments sometimes so nicely balanced, all the
more honor to those whose clearer vision guided
them to a righteous solution! Politically, the rev-
olutionary party comprised the best products of
American experience: the men whose social con-
sciousness was most fully aroused. Socially, its
leaders stood on a lofty ethical plane. They rep-
resented a political sagacity, a higher race-altruism,
which was capable of present sacrifice for the good
of the coming generations.

For social progress is not guided by the devout
conservatism of loyalists like Jonathan Boucher,
who as a final remedy recommended passive obe-
dience to a divinely appointed king and a divinely
ordained church. "It is your duty," he exclaimed,
' 1 to instruct your members to take all the con-

326 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1775

stitutional means in their power to obtain redress.
If these means fail of success, you cannot but be
sorry and grieved; but you will better bear your
disappointments by being able to reflect that it was
not owing to any misconduct of your own. . . . Those
persons are as little acquainted with general history,
as they are with the particular doctrines of Chris-
tianity, who represent such submission as abject
and servile. I afhrm, with great authority, that
there can be no better way of asserting the people's
lawful rights, than the disowning unlawful com-
mands, by thus patiently suffering.' ' 1 Not to such
men, however brave and conscientious, but to men
equally conscientious and more clear-sighted and
daring — to Adams, Franklin, and Washington — is
the upbuilding of nations committed.

1 Boucher, View of the Causes of the Revolution, 559.

CHAPTER XIX

CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

HE most complete bibliography of the subject of this

volume is found in Justin Winsor, Narrative and

Critical History of America (8 vols., 1888- 1889), VI.,
68-112, 172-204, which may be used to advantage with
his Reader's Handbook of the American Revolution, iy6i-
1783 (1880). Of first-rate bibliographical value for the
contemporary writings is Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History
of the American Revolution (2 vols., 1897). For critical
details may be consulted Joseph Sabin, Dictionary of
Books Relating to America (20 vols., incomplete, 1868-1892).
Similar aid may be gained from Isaiah Thomas, History
of Printing in America (1874). Very helpful are J. N.
Lamed, The Literature of American History, a Biblio-
graphical Guide (1902); and Edward Channing and Albert
Bushnell Hart, Guide to the Shidy of American History
(1896). Much of the earlier material in C. H. Van Tyne,
American Revolution (American Nation, IX.), is applicable
to the subject of this volume.

George Bancroft, History of the United States (10 vols.,
to 1782, 1834-1874; 6 vols., to 1789, 1885), presents the
most detailed account of the beginnings of the Revolution.
The book is the result of vast research, but it is marred
by the author's pro-American bias, his well-known faults
of style, and his disregard of the ethics of quotation marks

GENERAL SECONDARY AUTHORITIES

327

\

328 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

in the citation of documents. Except in the ten- volume
edition, its value is further impaired by the failure to cite
authorities. John Fiske, American Revolution (2 vols.,
1892), has treated the subject in his usual charming
manner; but he pays little attention to the causes. Rich-
ard Hildreth, History of the United States (6 vols., 1851-
1856, revised ed., 1882), is accurate and just; but his style
is dry and the analysis very faulty. The Scotch writer,
James Grahame, History of the United States (2d ed., 4
vols., 1845), is a clear and forceful narrative, written from
scanty source materials and under influence of extreme
democratic sentiments. The period is likewise covered by
John Marshall, History of the Colonies (1824) ; and Timothy
Pitkin, Political and Civil History of the United States (2
vols., 1828), an accurate and judicial work containing
valuable documents in the appendices.

A very able work from the patriotic point of view, drawn
largely from the sources, is Richard Frothingham, Rise
of the Republic of the United States (5th ed., 1890). James
Albert Woodburn has written an excellent analysis of the
Causes of the American Revolution (Johns Hopkins University
Studies, X., No. 12); G. W. Greene, Historical View of the
American Revolution (4th ed., 1876), has a chapter on the
causes; and so has H. C. Lodge, Short History of the
English Colonies of America (revised ed., 1902), who also
gives a good account of social conditions in* 1765. The
causes are also treated by H. C. Lodge, Story of the Revolu-
tion (2 vols., 1898); Mellen Chamberlain, "The Revolution
Impending " (Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History,
VI.), is a thoroughly critical and enlightening essay; and
there is a very fair summary by Edward C. Porter, "The
Beginnings of the Revolution" (Justin Winsor, Memorial
History of Boston, III.). The origin of the revolutionary
movement is clearly and vigorously traced by Harry Pratt
Judson, The Growth of the American Nation (1895). The
beginnings of the West are discussed in Edwin Erie Sparks,
The Expansion of the American People (1900); and his
Men Who Made the Nation (1901) contains lively and
entertaining chapters on the period. The early Revolu-

1775]

ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

329

tion is likewise treated by Woodrow Wilson, A History of
the American People (5 vols., 1902) ; and by Sidney Howard
Gay (and, nominally, W. C. Bryant), Popular History of
the United States (4 vols., 1 878-1 881; 5 vols., enlarged by
Noah Brooks, 1896).

COLONIAL AND STATE HISTORIES

New England Colonies. — Among the more important
works on the particular colonies we have Alden Bradford,
History of Massachusetts (3 vols., 1822-1829), one of the
best early accounts, the material for the early Revolution
being drawn largely from the same author's State Papers;
John Stetson Barry, History of Massachusetts (3 vols.,
1855-1857) ; and Harry A. Cushing, Transition from Province
to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts {Columbia
College Studies, VII., 1896), a thoroughly scientific study
from the sources. The period is treated in a trustworthy
manner in the second volume of Jeremy Belknap, History
of New Hampshire (3 vols., 2d ed., 181 3); Gideon Hiram
Hollister, History of Connecticut (2 vols., 1857); Alexander
Johnston, Connecticut (1887); Samuel Greene Arnold,
History of Rhode Island (4th ed., 2 vols., 1894), a work of
extraordinary merit; and Frank Greene Bates, Rhode
Island and the Formation of the Union {Columbia College
Studies, X., 1898), a painstaking monograph.

Middle Colonies. — A good account is contained in the
second volume of Ellis H. Roberts, New York (1887).
Important also are Carl Becker, "Nominations in Colonial
New York," in American Historical Review, VI., 260;
"Growth of Revolutionary Parties and Methods in New
York Province, 176 5- 1774," in ibid., VII., 56; and Charles
H. Levermore, "The Whigs in Colonial New York," in
ibid., I., 238. A very scholarly work is Isaac Sharpless, A
History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania (2 vols.,
1 898-1 899). There are careful monographs by Charles
H. Lincoln, The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania
{Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1901); and
William Robert Shepherd, History of the Proprietary

330 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

Government in Pennsylvania {Columbia College Studies,
VI., 1896). On some points, Thomas F. Gordon, History
of Pennsylvania (1829), may still be used with profit. See
also the entertaining book of Sydney George Fisher,
Pennsylvania (1897).

Southern Colonies. — J. T. Scharf, History of Maryland
(3 vols., 1879), contains many original documents, some of
them inaccurately copied. William Hand Browne, Mary-
land (1884), devotes several interesting chapters to the
period. There is a helpful study by John Archer Silver,
The Provisional Government of Maryland {Johns Hopkins
University Studies, XIII., No. 10); one by B. C. Steiner,
Western Maryland in the Revolution {ibid., XX., No. 1);
and an excellent monograph by Newton D. Mereness,
Maryland as a Proprietary Province (1901). For Virginia
the best work is Charles Campbell, History of the Colony of
Virginia (1859). There is much of value in William
Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia
(2 vols., 1857); John Daly Burk, History of Virginia (3
vols., 1 804-1 805), coming down to 1776; and the second
volume of Robert R. Howison, History of Virginia (1848),
deals with the Revolution. For North Carolina, besides
Francis Xavier Martin, History of North Carolina (2 vols.,
1829), and John W. Moore, History of North Carolina (2
vols., 1880), we have J. S. Jones, Defence of the Revolu-
tionary History of North Carolina (1834); Enoch Walter
Sikes, Transition of North Carolina from Colony to Common-
wealth Johns Hopkins University Studies , XVI., Nos. 10, 11);
and Charles Lee Raper, North Carolina: A Study in English
Colonial Government (1904), a sound discussion based on
the colonial records. All the early histories of South
Carolina are superseded by the admirable work of Edward
McCrady, South Carolina Under the Royal Government,
171Q-1776 (1899); and W. Roy Smith, South Carolina as a
Royal Province (1903). Consult also D. D. Wallace, Con-
stitutional History of South Carolina (1899); J. B. O.
Landrum, Colonial and Revolutionary History of Upper
South Carolina (1897); and William A. Schaper, Section-
alism and Representation in South Carolina (American

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

3oi

Historical Association, Report, 1900, I.). For Georgia
there are two good works, each derived from the original
documents. The second volume of Charles Colcock Jones,
History of Georgia (2 vols., 1883), is devoted mainly to the
Revolution; and that epoch is well treated in the second
volume of William Bacon Stevens, History of Georgia (2
vols., 1847-1859).

Discussion of the general authorities on the separate
colonies will also be found in the Critical Essay on Au-
thorities, in Lyon G. Tyler, England in America, Charles
M. Andrews, Colonial Self -Government; Evarts B. Greene,
Provincial America {American Nation, IV., V., VI.).

SECONDARY ENGLISH WORKS

An impartial discussion of the Revolution is that of
William E. H. Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth
Century (8 vols., 1878-1890), III., chap, xii, passim, al-
though he lays too much stress on alleged personal in-
fluences among the colonists. This part of Lecky's work
has been separately edited by James Albert Woodburn un-
der the title of The American Revolution, 1 763-1783 (1898).
Sir George Otto Trevelyan, The American Revolution (3
vols., 1899-1903), is in full sympathy with the American
side and brings out more clearly than does any other
writer the moral and social causes of the movement. In
a scientific spirit John A. Doyle has written a chapter, The
Quarrel with Great Britain, 1761-1776 {The Cambridge
Modern History, VII., 1903). Among the older British
writers the Tory bias of Lord Mahon (P. E. Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783 (3d ed., 7 vols., 1853-
1854); and John Adolphus, History of England, 1760-
1820 (7 vols., 1840-1845); may be balanced by the Whig
sentiment of W. N. Massey, History of England during the
Reign of George III. (4 vols., 1855-1863).

AMERICAN COLLECTIONS OF SOURCES

A very convenient collection of original documents of
every sort, for both America and Great Britain, is Peter

332 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

Force, American Archives (fourth and fifth series, 9 vols.,
1837-1853), but it is carelessly printed and should be used
with caution. Valuable material is likewise contained in
Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution (re-
print, 1876); Daniel R. Goodloe, Birth of the Republic
(1889); Frank Moore, Diary of the American Revolution
from Newspapers and Original Documents (1863); R. W.
Gibbes, Documentary History of the American Revolution,
1764-1776 (1855); John Durand, New Materials for the
History of the American Revolution (1889), drawn from the
French archives; William MacDonald, Select Charters and
Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1 606-1 77 5
(1899); Albert Bushnell Hart, American History Told by
Contemporaries (4 vols., 1897-1901), II., §§ 130-169.
French observation of America, 1763-17 7 5, is dealt with
by Henry Doniol, Histoire de la participation de la France
a V etablisscmcnt des Etats-Unis d'AmSrique (5 vols., 1886-
1899); and a work of unique value for the discussion of
many special questions is George Chalmers, Opinions of
Eminent Lawyers, on Various Points of English Juris-
prudence, Chiefly Concerning the Colonies, Fisheries, and
Commerce of Great Britain (2 vols., 1814; American ed.,
1858).

• Highly important for Massachusetts are Alden Bradford,
Speeches of the Governors . . . from 176 5-1 J 7 5, and the An-
swers of the House of Representatives (181 8), cited as Brad-
ford, Mass. State Papers; and John Almon, Collection of
Interesting and Authentic Papers Relating to the Dispute
between Great Britain and America, 1764-1775 (1777), cited
as Almon, Prior Documents. These papers are supple-
mented by Governor Thomas Hutchinson, Diary and Letters
(2 vols., 1 883-1 886); and by Governor Francis Bernard,
Select Letters (1774). Similar collections are Gertrude
Selwin Kimball, Correspondence of tlte Governors of Rhode
Island, 1723-1775 (2 vols., 1902-1903); for Maryland, W.
H. Browne, Correspondence of Governor Horatio Sharpe
(3 vols., 1888-1895) ; and for New York, the Colden Papers,
in the New York Historical Society, Collections, Fund
Series (29 vols., 1868-1897), IX., X.

1 775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 333

COLONIAL AND STATE PUBLICATIONS

First among the sources are the various collections of
laws, legislative records, state papers, and official cor-
respondence. The most important are: Journals of the
Honourable House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Bay
(1 723-1 778) ; Journal of the General Assembly of New York,
1691-1765 (2 vols., 1764-1766); ibid., 1766-1776 (1820);
Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the
Province of Pennsylvania (6 vols., 1752-17 7 6); New Hamp-
shire Provincial, Town, and State Papers (12 vols., 1867-
1883); Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1 636-1 776 (15
vols., 1850-1890), XI.-XV. ; Records of the Colony of
Rhode Island (10 vols., 1856-1865), VI., VII.; Documents
Relating to the Colonial History of New York (13 vols, and
index, 1856-1883), VII., VIII., X.; Documents Relating to
the Colony of New Jersey (22 vols, and index, 1 880-1 900),
VIII.-X., XVII., XVIII. , cited as New Jersey Archives;
A Selection of Pennsylvania Archives, three series (31 vols.,
1852-1895); Colonial Records of Pennsylvania (16 vols.,
1838-1852) ; W. W. Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia (13
vols., 1809- 1823), VII.-IX., passim; Colonial Records of
North Carolina (10 vols., 1 886-1 890), VI. -X. The Journals
of the Virginia house of burgesses are of the highest value ;
but they are extremely scarce, no library in the country
having a complete set: consult the bibliography by J.
Franklin Jameson, in American Historical Association,
Report, 1897, pp. 432-437. See also the Proceedings of the
Conventions of Maryland, 1774-1776 (1836).

BRITISH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

For Great Britain the Cobbett-Hansard, Parliamentary
History, XV -XVIII.; Sir H. Cavendish, Debates of the
House of Commons, . . . 1768-1771 (3 vols., 1841-1843);
Journal of the House of Commons, XXIX.-XXXVI.;
Journal of the House of Lords, XXX.-XXXV. ; Protests of
the Lords (3 vols., edited by J. E. T. Rogers, 1875; or to
1767, edited by John Almon, 1767); Calendar of Home

VOL VIII. — 23

334 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

Office Papers, 1760-1JJ5 (3 vols., 1878-1899); Statutes at
Large (109 vols., 1 762-1866), are of course indispensable.

WORKS OF AMERICAN STATESMEN

Most important among the papers of the chief actors of
the impending revolution are Benjamin Franklin, Works
(10 vols., edited by Jared Sparks, 1840; or 10 vols., edited
by John Bigelow, 188 7-1 888) ; John Adams, Works (10 vols.,
edited by Charles Francis Adams, 1850-1856); George
Washington, Writings (14 vols., edited by W. C. Ford,
1889-1893) ; Alexander Hamilton, Works (9 vols., edited by
Henry Cabot Lodge, 1885-1886); John Dickinson, Writings
(3 vols., edited by P. L. Ford, 1895); or the edition of his
Political Writings (1801); Thomas Jefferson, Writings (10
vols., edited by P. L. Ford, 1892-1899); Stephen Hopkins,
Rights (1764); and Samuel Adams, Writings, edited by
Harry Alonzo Cushing (1 vol. pub. 1904). See also the
Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife (edited by
Charles Francis Adams, 1876); Francis Hopkinson, Mis-
cellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings (3 vols., 1792);
William Eddis, Letters from America, iy6g-ijyy (1792);
Theodoric Bland, Papers (2 vols., edited by Charles Camp-
bell, 1 840-1 843); Kate Mason Rowland, Life of George
Mason, 1725-1JQ2 (2 vols., 1892); William Wirt Henry,
Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (3 vols.,
1 891); Josiah Quincy, Memoirs of Josiah Quincy, Junior,
IJ44-1J75 (1825, 1874), containing Quincy's "Journal"
and much other contemporary matter.

WORKS OF BRITISH STATESMEN

There is a wealth of similar materials for Great Britain.
Of most service are Edmund Burke, Works (4th ed., 12
vols., 1871); Chatham Correspondence (4 vols., edited by
W. S. Taylor, 1838); William Pitt, Speeches (new ed.,
1848) ; supplemented by John Almon, Anecdotes of William
Pitt, Earl of Chatham (7th ed., 3 vols., 1810); and by
Francis Thackeray, Chatham (2 vols., 1827); Grenville

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 335

Papers (4 vols., edited by W. J. Smith, 1853); Memoirs
of the Marquis of Rockingham (2 vols., edited by G. T.
Keppel, Earl of Albemarle, 1852); John Russell, Bedford
Correspondence (3 vols., 1846); and W. B. Donne, Cor-
respondence of George III. with Lord North, 17 68-1 78 3 (2
vols., 1867). The Reports of the Royal Commission on His-
torical Manuscripts contain many documents on the period,
and their use is facilitated by the index in the American
Historical Association, Report, 1898, pp. 611 et seq.

Much light is thrown on English social and political
conditions by Horace Walpole, Memoirs of the Court of
George II. (2d ed., 3 vols., 1847); Memoirs of the Court of
George III. (4 vols., 1845; new ed., 3 vols., 1894); Letters
(9 vols., edited by Peter Cunningham, 1857); Henry B.
Wheatley, Memoirs of Wraxatt, 177 2-1784 (1784); Letters
of Junius (2 vols., edited by Woodfall, 1882) ; John Wilkes,
North Briton (author's revised ed., 1766); James Earl
Waldegr ave , Memoirs , 1 7 54-1 758 ( 1 8 2 1 ) ; George B ubb
Doddington, Diary, 1748-176 1 (1784).

CONTEMPORARY NARRATIVES

Among the historical accounts produced by persons who
lived during or near the events which they describe are:
G. R. Minot, History of Massachusetts, 1748-176 5 (2
vols., 1 798-1803), giving the patriotic view; Abiel Holmes,
Annals (2 vols., 1805); Mercy Warren (sister of James
Otis), History of the . . . American Revolution (3 vols., 1805),
whose book is supplemented by her letters to John Adams,
in Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th series,
IV., 3 1 5-5 1 1 ; and the remarkably fair and accurate History
of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (3 vols., 1 795-1828),
by Governor Thomas Hutchinson, the foremost loyalist in
America. Consult also William Moultrie, Memoirs of the
American Revolution, so Far as It Related to North and Sovith
Carolina and Georgia (2 vols., 1802), in part based on per-
sonal observations ; David Ramsay, History of the Revolution
of South Carolina (2 vols., 1785) ; John Drayton, Memoirs of
the American Revolution (2 vols., 182 1), relating to the same

336 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

province; and Thomas Jones, History of New York in the
Revolutionary War (2 vols., edited by E. F. de Lancey,
1879), a loyalist account written in England after the peace.
It should be read with H. P. Johnston's critical Observations
(1880). Of constant service is the Anmial Register (begin-
ning in 1759), much of the matter relating to American
affairs probably being written by Edmund Burke, one of
its founders. From it in part were compiled David Ram-
say, History of the American Revolution (2 vols., 1791); and
William Gordon, History of the Rise, Progress, and Establish-
ment of the Independence of the United States (4 vols., 1788).
These should be read in the light of the criticism by Or-
rin Grant Libby, "Ramsay as a Plagiarist," in American
Historical Review, VII., 697; and Critical Examination of
Gordon's History of the American Revolution (American His-
torical Association. Report, 1899, I., 365). In the Wis-
consin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, Transac-
tions, XIII., 419, this writer has proved that largely from
the same source, directly or indirectly, were taken five other
early histories of the period.

CONTROVERSIAL WORKS

On each side of the sea the Revolution produced a vast
number of controversial pamphlets, most of which relate
to particular episodes. Some of them are more general;
for example, Governor Thomas Pownall, Administration
of the Colonies (1764); A Memorial to the Sovereigns
of Europe on the State of Affairs between the Old and the
New World (1780), being a forecast of the future repub-
lic; William Griffith, Historical Notes of the Ainerican Colo-
nies and the Revolution, 1754 - 1775; the anonymous
Rights of Great Britain Asserted against the Claims of
America (1776), of which Lord George Germain is be-
lieved to have been in part author; Richard Price, Ob-
servations on the Nature of Civil Liberty . . . and the Justice
and Policy of the War with America (1776), being a plea for
conciliation; J. Roebuck, Enquiry whether the Guilt of the
Present Civil War in America Ought to be Imputed to Great
Britain or America (1776).

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 337

POETICAL MATERIAL

Contemporary sentiment is reflected in Philip Freneau,
Poems (1786; or F. L. Pattee's ed., 1902); Frank Moore,
Songs and Ballads of the American Revolution (1856) ; Illus-
trated Ballad History of the American Revolution, 1765-1783
(1876); John Trumbull, M'Fingal: A Modern Epic Poem
(1782; edited by B. J. Lossing, 1864); Poetical Works
(1820); Winthrop Sargent, Loyalist Poetry of the Revolution
(1857); G. L. Raymond, Ballads of the Revolution (1887).

AMERICAN CONDITIONS

The condition of the colonies before and at the commence-
ment of the period may be studied in Andrew Burnaby,
Travels through the Middle Settlements, 175Q-1760 (2d ed.,
1775); Edmund Burke, An Account of European Settle-
ments in America (1760); and George Chalmers, An In-
troduction to the History of the Revolt of the American
Colonies (1845). See also John Almon, A Collection of
Tracts . . . on the Subject of Taxing the American Colonies
( 1 7 7 3 ) > &n(I his Charters of the British Colonies (1775). For
samples of contemporary political sermons, see John Win-
gate Thornton, Pidpit of the American Revolution (2d ed.,
1876).

THE LOYALISTS IN THE PRELIMINARY PERIOD

The fairest treatment of the loyalists in the impending
revolution is given by Moses Coit Tyler, "The Party of the
Loyalists in the American Revolution," in American His-
torical Review, I.; and Literary History of the American
Revolution, I. For New York there is an excellent mono-
graph by Alexander Clarence Flick, Loyalism in New York
during the American Revolution {Columbia College Studies,
XIV., 1 901). There is also a helpful study by G. A.
Gilbert, "Connecticut Loyalists," in American Historical
Review, IV., 273-291. The best general treatise is Claude
Halstead Van Tyne, Loyalists in the American Revolution

338 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

(1902), or his American Revolution (American Nation, IX.)-
The older works of Lorenzo Sabine, Biographical Sketches
of Loyalists of the American Revolution (2 vols., 1864); and
Egerton Ryerson, Loyalists of America and Their Times
(2d ed., 2 vols., 1880), should be used with caution as the
investigation is often superficial. For the argument of the
loyalists consult the literature analyzed by Moses Coit
Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, I.,
and the materials in A. B. Harfc, Contemporaries, II.,
Nos. 138, 154, 156-158, 166-169.

THE AMERICAN EPISCOPATE

Mellen Chamberlain, John Adams the Statesman of the
American Revolution (1884), holds that the attempt to set
up the Anglican episcopate in the colonies was an important
cause of their separation from the parent state. He relies
especially upon John Adams, Works, X., 185, and Jonathan
Boucher, View of the Causes and Consequences of the Amer-
ican Revolution (1797), 150. The authority on the subject
is Arthur Lyon Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the
American Colonies (Harvard Historical Studies, IX., 1902),
who cites the entire literature. Important for the dis-
cussion are W. S. Perry, History of the American Episcopal
Church (2 vols., 1885); S. E. Baldwin, The Jurisdiction
of the Bishop of London (American Antiquarian Society,
Proceedings, new series, XIII., 179-221); C. C. Tiffany,
History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States (1895), 266-286; Hawks, Efforts to Obtain a Colonial
Episcopate before the Revolution (Protestant Episcopal
Historical Society, Collections, I., 136-157); Contributions
to American Church History (2 vols., 1 836-1 839).

THE EARLY WEST

The Draper MSS. in the library of the Wisconsin His-
torical Society are indispensable for a thorough history of
early Kentucky and Tennessee. The best accounts of the
institutional beginnings are George Henry Alden, New

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 339

Governments West of the Alleghanies before 1780 (Wisconsin
Historical Society, Bulletins, II.), and Frederick J. Turner,
"Western State-Making in the Revolutionary Era," in
American Historical Review, I., 251. Of great value is the
magnificent work of George W. Ranck, Boonesborough,
supplemented by J. M. Brown, Political Beginnings of
Kentucky, and R. T. Durrett, The State of Kentucky (all
in Filson Club, Publications, VI., VII., XVI., 1890-1901).
J. G. M. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee (1853); J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee (1888); N. S. Shaler, Kentucky (1885);
Lewis Collins, History of Kentucky (revised ed., 2 vols.,
1874); M. Butler, History of the Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky (1834); R. G. Thwaites, Daniel Boone (1902);
Justin Winsor, The Mississippi Basin (1895); The West-
ward Movement (1897); Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning
of the West (4 vols., 1 889-1 896), are all of service. The
proceedings of the Transylvania convention are in Force,
American Archives, 4th series, IV., as well as in the works
of Collins and Ranck above mentioned. The original
documents relating to the Regulators in North Carolina
are in North Carolina Colonial Records, VII. -IX. The
best monograph on the subject is that of John S. Bassett,
Regulators of North Carolina (American Historical Associa-
tion, Report, 1894, pp. 141-212).

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The significance of the molasses act and the sugar
act as affecting the West India trade is emphasized by
George Louis Beer, Commercial Policy of England toward
the American Colonies {Columbia College Studies, III., No.
2), 107, 148; by Mellen Chamberlain, in Justin Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History, VI., 24-26, 63 ; and by W. B.
Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England (2
vols., 1894) ,11. ,745-768. Earlier evidence is given by Daniel
Defoe, A Plan for the English Commerce (1741); Governor
Francis Bernard, Select Letters (1774), 6, 7, 9— 11 ; Joshua
Gee, Trade and Navigation (3d ed., 1731), 72; Governor
Thomas Pownall, Administration of the Colonies (2d ed..

54© PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1689

1 765), 5, 6; and especially by G. R. Minot, History of
Massachusetts, II., 140, 146-148, 164-166. The effect of
the sugar act in Massachusetts is described by Governor
Thomas Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, 104,
and by Richard Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 162.
At this time appeared James Otis, Rights of the British
Colonics (1764), and several other important pamphlets
noticed in the text. The literature of the period is dis-
cussed by Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History of the American
Revolution, I., 4) et seq.

On the restrictive system the best monograph is George
Louis Beer, The Commercial Policy of England toward the
American Colonies (Columbia College Studies, III., No.
2). We have also the excellent study of Eleanor Louisa
Lord, Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies (Johns
Hopkins University Studies, extra volume XVII.); Edward
Channing, The Navigation Laws (American Antiquarian
Society, Proceedings, 1890); W. J. Ashley, "England and
America, 1 660-1 760," in his Surveys Historical and Economic
(1900), criticising the popular view as to the oppressive
character of the acts of navigation and trade. On the old
colonial system, see also J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of
England (1883); Lord Sheffield, Observations on the Com-
merce of the American States (1783); and the authorities
cited in chap. iii. of the text. Consult especially Charles
McLean Andrews, Colonial Self -Government (American
Nation, V.), chap. i. ; Evarts B. Greene, Provincial America
(American Nation, VI.).

SPIRIT OF INDEPENDENCE BEFORE 1763

Before the conquest of Canada the dread of the French
power felt by the English colonists is expressed by Jeremiah
Dummer, Letter to a Noble Lord (1709); and in 1731 by
Lieutenant - Governor Wentworth, in New Hampshire
Historical Society, Collections, I., 227-230. The alleged
advantage to England of leaving Canada in French hands
is mentioned by Peter Kalm, Travels in America (1770), I.,
262-265. The surrender of the conquered province is op-
posed by William Pulteney, Letter to Two Great Men (1760) ;

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

it was favored by William Burke, Remarks on the Letter
Addressed to Two Great Men (1760); who is answered by
Benjamin Franklin, The Interest of Great Britain Con-
sidered (1760; also in Works, Bigelow's ed., III., 83). See
also Evarts B. Greene, Provincial America {American Na-
tion, VI.) » chaps, xi., xii.

EARLY PLANS OF UNION

The rise of a sentiment of union before the French war
is discussed by Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 101-157.
Penn's plan is in Documents Relating to the Colonial History
of New York, IV., 296; that of Franklin in his Works
(Bigelow's ed.), II., 355-375; or in Documents Relating to
the Colonial History of New York, VI., 889. There are
other plans in American History Leaflets, No. 14. The
effect of the strife with the governors and the clamor for
taxation is shown by Bancroft, United States (ed. of 1885),
II.; William Black, Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for
Canada {Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., No. 7); and
Hubert Hall, "Chatham's Colonial Policy," in American
Historical Review, V.

RESULTS OF THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR

On the general results of the war see John Adams, Works,

II. , 23; William E. H. Lecky, England, III., 290; Ban-
croft, United States (ed. of 1885), II.; Woodburn, Causes
of the American Revolution {Johns Hopkins University
Studies, X., No. 12, p. 557). On the population of the
colonies consult Andrew Burnaby, Travels (2d ed., 1775),
76, 133, 134; F. B. Dexter, "Estimates of Population," in
American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 1887; Ban-
croft, United States (ed. of 1885), II., 290; Lodge, Short
History, 456; Judson, Growth of the American Nation, 55.
See also R. G. Thwaites, France in America {American
Nation, VII.), chaps, xvii., xix.

BRITISH POLITICAL CONDITIONS

The fullest discussion of political conditions under George

III. is contained in T. E. May, Constitutional History of

342 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1763

England (2 vols., 1880, 1899). For statistics relating to
parliamentary representation, F. H. B. Oldfield, Repre-
sentative History (6 vols., 181 6), is indispensable. The
best general accounts of the reign may be found in William
E. H. Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century; John
Richard Green, History of the English People (4 vols., 1880),
IV. ; and Sir George Otto Trevelyan, American Revolution,
I. These may be supplemented by the older works of
Adolphus, Mahon, and Massey. The principal sources are
cited in the text, chap. ii.

WRITS OF ASSISTANCE AND PARSON'S CAUSE

John Adams's notes on James Otis's speech in the case
of Paxton are contained in his Works, II., 521-523. This
is somewhat extended in G. R. Minot, History of Massa-
chusetts II., 87-99; m William Tudor, James Otis, 62 et
seq. ; in the copy by Israel Keith, in Quincy's Reports,
479-482; and supplemented by Adams's untrustworthy
recollections in his letters to William Tudor, in his Works,
X. Horace Gray, Writs of Assistance, in Quincy, Reports,
is a masterly investigation of the subject from the sources.
There is a good account of the speech in Moses Coit Tyler,
Literary History of the American Revolution, I., 30 et seq.;
and notices may be found in many of the histories of the
period. The assertion of William E. H. Lecky, England,
III., 328, that in England "cases of revenue fraud" might
be tried in the admiralty court without a jury is not sus-
tained by the evidence: see, for example, William Bunbury,
Reports of Cases in the Court of Exchequer (1755), 236;
Edward Coke, Fourth Institute (ed. of 1797), 134-146; es-
pecially James Kent, Commentaries (ed. of 1891), I., 375—
378, and the cases there cited.

The early life of Patrick Henry and his speech in the
Parson's Cause are treated by Moses Coit Tyler, Patrick
Henry (1893); and by William Wirt Henry, Patrick
Henry (3 vols., 1891), I. The Life by William Wirt (1818)
is fascinating but uncritical. The report of Rev. James
Maury, plaintiff in the suit, is given by Ann Maury, Me-

1767] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 343

moirs of a Huguenot Family (1872). Many of the original
documents in the controversy may be found in W. S. Perry,
Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial
Church (3 vols., 1870), I. In general consult Charles
Campbell, History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of
Virginia (1859); William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers,
and Families of Virginia (1887); Andrew Burnaby, Travels
through the Middle Settlements (17 59-1 760) ; Richard Bland,
Letter to the Clergy (1760); and the other authorities cited
in the text.

THE STAMP ACT AND ITS REPEAL

The debates on the Stamp Act in its three stages are in
part recorded in Cobbett-Hansard, Parliamentary History,
XVI. ; and the best account of the resistance in America is
given by Richard Frothingham, Rise of the Republic,
158-200. Bancroft's treatment is very full; Lecky has
an enlightening discussion; and Hutchinson is helpful
throughout the controversy. Among the more important
writings called out by the contest are John Dickinson,
The Late Regulations (1765); Daniel Dulany, Considera-
tions on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes (1765); Stephen
Hopkins, The Rights of the Colonies Examined (1764); on
the British side, Martin Howard, Letters from a Gentleman
at Halifax (1765) ; Soame Jenyns, Objections to the Taxation
of Our Colonies (1765); and George Grenville, Regulations
Lately Made Concerning the Colonies (1765). Franklin's ex-
amination is in his Works (Bigelow's ed.), III., 409-450; and
the proceedings of the Stamp- Act congress are in Hezekiah
Niles, Principles and Acts of the American Revolution; and
John Almon, Prior Documents.

TOWNSHEND ACTS

For the colonies the best account of the period of the
Townshend acts and the royal orders, 1 767-1773, is Richard
Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 201-293. The proceed-
ings in Parliament are in Cobbett-Hansard, Parliamentary
History, XVI., and Cavendish, Debates of the House of Com-

344 PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION [1767

mons, I. For Massachusetts, Alden Bradfold, State Papers,
and Thomas Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, are
in constant requisition. Lecky's account of the Boston
"massacre" is just; while Bancroft is prejudiced in the
extreme. On this episode see Short Narrative of the Horrid-
Massacre in Boston (1770); A Fair Account (1770); Fred-
erick Kidder, History of the Boston Massacre (1870); and
Richard Frothingham, "Sam Adams Regiments," in
Atlantic Monthly, IX., 201, X., 179, XII., 595. J. R.
Bartlett, History of the Destruction of the Gas pee (1861),
or the same in Rlwde Island Colonial Records, VII., 57-192,
gives the original papers in this affair. E. D. Collins, in
American Historical Association, Report, 1901, I., 243-271,
discusses the committees of correspondence; there is an
excellent study by J. Franklin Jameson, "Origin of the
Standing Committee System in American Legislative
Bodies," in Political Science Quarterly, IX.; and a careful
monograph by Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of
Safety of the American Revolution (1904).

COERCION

Max Farrand, "The Taxation of Tea, 1 767-1 773," in
American Historical Rcviruu, III., 266-269, clears up some
popular errors regarding the tea acts. Justin Winsor,
Narrative and Critical History, VI., 90-96, gives a bibliog-
raphy of the tea incident and the port bill. The docu-
ments relating to the relief of Boston are in Massachusetts
Historical Society, Collections, 4th series, IV. The episode
of the Hutchinson letters is discussed by Benjamin Franklin,
Works (Sparks's ed.), IV., 405-455, and in Peter Orlando
Hutchinson, Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson (2 vols.,
1883-1886). See also J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams (1893);
J. T. Morse, Franklin (1892); Sir George Otto Trevelyan,
American Revolution (3 vols., 1899-1903), I.; John Bigelow,
Life of Franklin (3 vols., 1874); and Copy of Letters sent
to Great Britain, by his Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, the
Hon. Andrew Oliver, and several other Persons, Born and
Educated Among Us (Boston, 1773).

1775] ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 345

Victor Coffin, The Province of Quebec and the Early
American Revolution (University of Wisconsin, Bulletins,
I., No. 3, 1896), gives the best account of the Quebec act.
See also his Quebec Act and the American Revolution (Amer-
ican Historical Association, Report, 1894); his paper in
Yale Review, August, 1895; and Justin Winsor, "Virginia
and the Quebec Act," in American Historical Review, I.,
436-442. The proceedings of the first and second Con-
tinental congresses are in Journals of the American Congress
(4 vols., 1823). The proceedings of the congress of 1774
and those of the provincial congress of Massachusetts may
also be found in Force, American Archives, 4th series, I.
Under the supervision of William Lincoln the state of
Massachusetts has also published The Journals of tlie
Provincial Congress in I774~J775 (l838). On these
congresses there is a good paper by Albion W. Small, The
Beginnings of American Nationality {Johns Hopkins
University Studies, VIII., Nos. 1, 2). On Lexington and
Bunker Hill the most important work is Frothingham, The
Siege of Boston (4th ed., 1873). See also Charles Francis
Adams, "The Battle of Bunker Hill," in American His-
torical Revieiv, I., 401-413; the bibliographies in Winsor,
Handbook, 26-59; an(i Narrative and Critical History, VI.,
174 et seq.

1

INDEX

Acts of trade. See Naviga-
tion acts.

Adams, John, on independence
(1755), 18; ^(1774), 298; on
writs of assistance case, 77;
on repeal of Stamp Act, 174;
defends soldiers, 204; on re-
ligious phase of Revolution,
206, 216; in Continental Con-
gress, 287; on social Phila-
delphia (1774), 288; on num-
ber of loyalists, 317; bibli-
ography, 334.

Adams, Samuel, sugar-act pro-
test, 110; circular letter, 187;
evidence against, 201 ; charac-
ter, 253-255; committee of
correspondence, 255, 256;
urges a congress, 265; and
independence (1773), 266;
(1774), 298; and tea, 270,
271; in Continental Congress,
287, 291.

Alamance, battle, 224.

Albany, population (1763), 20.

Albany plan, 13, 14, 226.

Allen, Ethan, Ticonderoga, 310.

Argenson, Marquis de, predicts
independence, 18.

Army, American, training of
French war, 10; preparation,
301, 306; Congress adopts,

Army, British, in colonies, pro-
posed, 102, 104; protests
against, 113, 124, 247; pur-
pose, 123; billeting act, 138,

175; for Boston, 189, 193,
195, 197, 283; Boston mas-
sacre, 202-205; quartering
act, 276.

Ashley, John, on mercantile
system, 63.

Assemblies and governors, 16,
84..

Association of 1774, 294, 295;
ratification and enforcement,
296; Gage's proclamation,
299; parliamentary retalia-
tion, 304-306.

Baltimore, population (1763),
20.

Barre, Isaac, on Stamp Act, 136.
Bean, William, at Watauga,

235-

Bernard, Francis, and billeting
act, 176, 177; as governor,
178; and council, 178-180,
201; and stamp -riot com-
pensation, 180; and con-
vention of towns, 197; leaves,
202.

Bibliographies of period 1763-

,i775> 327-
Billeting act, 138; and New

York assembly, 175, 183, 185,
245; and Massachusetts as-
sembly, 176; in Boston, 198.

Bland, Richard, committee of
correspondence, 257; in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.

Board of Trade, authority, 72;
and Vandalia, 232.

347

348 PRELIMINARIES

OF REVOLUTION

Boone, Daniel, at Watauga,
235; in Kentucky, 238.

Boonesborough settled, 238.

Boston, population (1763), 20;
sugar-act protest ,110; Stamp -
Act riots, 151, 152; non-
importation, 186; and cus-
toms commissioners, 188,
199; troops ordered to, 189,
J93» 195 ; impressment riot,
193; Liberty sloop riot, 193;
open customs violations, 194;
preparation for troops, 196;
arrival of troops, 197; atti-
tude towards troops, 202,
203; massacre, 203-205; ren-
dezvous for navy, 248; com-
mittee of correspondence ,255,
2t;6; tea-party, 269-271; port
bill, 273, 280, 281, 283; aid
for, 283; military possession,
283; capital a^ain, 299; forti-
fied,_ 300; siege, 309-311;
bibliography of massacre,
344; of port bill, 344; of
siege, 345.

Botetourt, Lord, and Virginia
protest, 200.

Boucher, Jonathan, on relig-
ious phase of Revolution,
207; on passive obedience,

325-. . .

Bounties under navigation acts,

58-61; (1765), 134, 138.

Bouquet, Henry, treaty, 230.

Bunker Hill, battle, 310; bibli-
ography, 345.

Burgoyne, John, joins Gage,
306.

Burke, Edmund, and inde-
pendence, 7, 272; on coercive
acts, 281; on conciliation,

_ 3°5-

Burnaby, Andrew, on two-
penny act, 94.

Bute, Earl of, premier, 29; rise,
29; and king, 158.

Butler, Joseph, and colonial
church, 215.

Camm, John, parson's cause,

95-

Canada, Quebec act, 276-279;

invitation to, 295.
Carr, Dabney, committee of

correspondence, 257.
Carter's Valley, settlement, 236.
Catholicism, Quebec act, 276,

279.

Chandler, T. B., on colonial

bishops, 217.
Charleston, population (1763),

20.

Charlotiana, 229.

Charters, Massachusetts, an-
nulled, 274.

Chatham, Earl of. See Pitt.

Chauncy, Charles, on colonial
bishops, 218, 2.19.

Cherokee Indians, location, 235;
cede Transylvania, 239-240.

Child, Josiah, on mercantile
system, 63.

Choctaw Indians, location, 235.

Church, Benjamin, paper, 256.

Church of England in colonies,
establishment, 208; antip-
athy to bishops, 208; early
agitation for bishops, 208,
209 ; zeal of clergy for bishops,
209, 218; authority of bishop
of London, 210, 214; com-
missaries, 211; Society for
Propagating the Gospel, 211;
its zeal for oishops, 211; mo-
tive and plan for bishops,
212-220; establishment fear-
ed, 213, 214; Mayhew con-
troversy, 215, 216; Chandler-
Chauncy controversy, 217-
219; indifference of laity, 218;
influence on Revolution, 219-
221; bibliography, 338.

Cities, in 1763, 20; growth of
English, 24.

Clinton, Sir Henry, joins Gage,
306.

Coercive acts, 273-276, 280-
282; effect, 282-285; prep-

1

INDEX

349

aration to resist, 298; bibli-
ography, 344.

Colden, Cadwallader, and
tenure of judges, 86; and
appeal to Privy Council, 130;
and sugar act, 131; and
Stamp Act, 141.

Colonial system. See Mercan-
tile system. Navigation acts.

Colonies, results of French war,
5-15; intercommunication
(1763), 15; government quar-
rels, 16, 84; revenue from,
16, 71, 102-104, 122; theory
of control, 42, 43, 47; royal
prerogative and orders, 43,
49, 84, 85, 87, 100, 245-253;
acceptance of theoretical con-
trol, 44; prosperity, 44; polit-
ical conditions, 44; morals,
44-46; royal control of of-
ficers, 85-87, 183, 184, 248,
249; rights, 80, in, 112, 115-
117, 133, iSS-^. 293> 322;
ministerial scheme (1763),
102-104, 122-124; uniform
government, 122, i23;Town-
shend's policy, 182; and
Quebec act, 276-279; rev-
olutionary government, 296;
bibliography of individual,
329-331; archives, 333. See
also Army, Church of Eng-
land, Commerce, Concilia-
tion, Independence, Loyal-
ists, Parliament, Revolution,
Taxation, Union, West, and
colonies by name.

Commerce, growth of British,
23; colonial balance of trade,
107; of colonies restrained,
304-306. See also Customs,
Mercantile system, Naviga-
tion acts, Non-importation,
Slave-trade, Tea, Townshend
acts.

Committees of correspondence,
on sugar act, 114, 131; lo-
cal, 255, 256, 271; intercolo-

VOL. VIII. — 24

nial, 257, 271; bibliography,
344-.

Committees of inspection, 296,
297. See also Association.

Committees of safety, 301;
bibliography, 344.

Compton, Henry, and colonial
church, 210.

Conciliation, Pitt's plan (1775),
303; North's plan (1775),
304, 310; Burke's speech,
305; Galloway's plan, 321;
possibility (1775), 3 2 4-

Concord, battle, 308, 309;
bibliography, 345.

Connecticut, and Stamp Act,
125, 148; bibliography, 329,

333-

Continental Congress, first,
Adams urges, 265; agitation
for, 284; Virginia recom-
mends, 285; selection of dele-
gates, 286; delegates, 287;
broadening influence, 288;
governmental character, 289,
290; organization, 290; equal
colonial vote, 290; debates,
ruling spirits, 291; Suffolk
resolves, 292; conciliation
plan rejected, 292; Declara-
tion of Rights, 293; Associa-
tion, 294, 295; other papers,
295; character of papers,
295; action of Parliament,
302-306; bibliography, 345.

Continental Congress, second,
meets, 311; assumes national
functions, 311; advises col-
onies, 311; creates army, 311;
bibliography^ 345. #

Conway, H. S., in ministry, 161.

Cooper, Myles, loyalist, 324.

Corruption in Parliament, 29-

32-

Cotton, John, in Stamp Act
Congress, 154.

Council, appointment of Massa-
chusetts, 178-180, 274.

Courts. See Judiciary.

35o PRELIMINARIES OF REVOLUTION

Coxe, Daniel, plan of union, 13. '
Coxe, William, stamp officer,

resigns, 153.
Creek Indians, location, 235.
Crime, English conditions

(1763) » 38-40.

Crown, control over colonies,
43> 49. 84, 85, 87, 100, 245-
253; and colonial officers,
85-87, 183, 184, 248, 249.
See also George III.

Crown Point captured, 310.

Customs, established, 57; of-
ficers, 72; writs of assist-
ance, 73-75, Si; duty on
slaves, 89; naval protection,
103, 251; board of commis-
sioners, 183, 188, 194, 195,
199; Townshend duties, 183,
243; Liberty sloop riot, 193;
open violations, 194; Gaspee
affair, 251-253, 257; tea, 243,
244, 268-271.

Dartmouth, Lord, and Gaspee
affair, 257.

Davenant, Charles, plan of
union, 12.

Dawes, William, alarm, 307.

Deane, Silas, in Continental
Congress. 287.

Declaratory act (1766), 172;
purpose, 174; upheld, 244.

Delaware and Stamp Act Con-
gress, 148.

Dickinson, John, and proprie-
tary, 126 ; in Stamp Act Con-
gress, 155; Farmer's Letters,
185 ; in Continental Congress,
287,295; bibliography, 334.

Dobbs, Arthur, and sugar act,
128.

Duane, James, in Continental
Congress, 287, 293.

Dudingston, William, Gaspee
affair, 251-253.

Dulany, Daniel, on virtual rep-
resentation, 168.

Dunmore's war, 241.

Economic conditions, ignorance
of economic laws, 2 1 ; English
(1760), 23, 24; phase of Rev-
olution, 68, 118- 120, 325;
bibliography, 337, 339. See
also Commerce, Revenue,
Taxation.

Eliot, Andrew, on colonial
bishops, 215.

England, result of Seven Years'
War, 3; empire (1763), 22,
42; prosperity, 23; urban
growth, 24; government
(i763). 25; Whig oligarchy,
28; rise of public opinion, 36;

civil rights (1763), 37. 38;
criminal code, 38-40; slavery,
40; slave-trade, 40-42; im-
perial theory, 42, 43; tax
burden, 124; attitude tow-
ards colonies (1774), 273;
(I77S). 302; bibliography of
statesmen, 334; of condi-
tions, 335, 341. See also
Colonies, Crown, George III.,
Parliament.
Episcopacy in colonies. See
Church of England.

Fauquier, Francis, and two-
penny act, 95.

Fees, in North Carolina, 223;
Maryland controversy, 251.

Finances. See Revenue, Taxa-
tion.

Fisheries, effect of sugar act,
108, 112; whale, 135; pro-
hibited, 305.

Fitch, Thomas, Reasons, 126.

Fox, Henry, corruption, 30.

Franklin, Benjamin, on colo-
nial loyalty, 8; Albany plan,
13, 14, 226; and Stamp Act,
124, 136-138; and proprie-
tary, 126; agent in Eng-
land, 128, 260; examination
(1766), 169-171; plans for
new colonies, 226, 231; and
Hutchinson letters, 260-265;

INDEX

35i

dismissed, 265; leaves Eng-
land, 265.

French and Indian War, re-
sults, 5-15; bibliography of
results, 341.

Frontier, Shenandoah Valley,
226; proclamation line, 229.
See also West.

Fuller, Rose, on Boston port
bill, 281.

Fur-trade, 52, 59.

Gadsden, Christopher, and
Stamp Act Congress, 147,
155; in Continental Congress,
287.

Gage, Thomas, and billeting
act, 198; on coercion, 273;
governor of Massachusetts,
283; seizes munitions, 297,
306; on Association, 299;
civil power nullified, 301; re-
inforced, 306; Concord, 307-
309; besieged, 309-311.

Galloway, Joseph, and pro-
prietary, 126; in Continental
Congress, 287, 291; concilia-
tion plan, 292, 321—324.

Gaspee affair, 251-253; com-
mission, 257; Virginia res-
olutions, 257; bibliography,

344-

Gee, Joshua, on mercantile
system, 63, 107.

George III., as king, 26, 28;
training, 26; private charac-
ter, 27, 30; and Pitt, 29;
personal rule, 29, 158; cor-
ruption, 29-32; and Gren-
ville, 104, 1 58-161; and
Stamp Act, 163, 171; and
Whigs, 242 ; and tea tax, 244,
269; and Massachusetts, 273;
and coercion, 282, 302.

Georgia, and Stamp Act Con-
gress, 148; speakership con-
troversy, 249; and Associa-
tion, 296, 306; bibliography,

33i.

Germain, Lord George, on coer-
cive acts, 280.

Gibson, Edmund, and colonial
church, 211.

Government, frontier compacts,
237-240. See also Colonies,
Parliament.

Governors, and legislatures, 16,
84; royal control, 183, 184.

Grafton, Duke of, ministry,
181, 242.

Grenville, George, corruption,
31; character, 102; premier,
103; colonial policy, 103,
121-123, 181; and Stamp
Act, 124, 134, 164; palliative
measures, 138; fall, 158-161;
bibliography, 334.

Gridley, Jeremiah, writs of
assistance, 76, 77.

Hancock, John, Liberty sloop
riot, 193; in provincial con-
gress, 301; committee of
safety, 306.

Harrison, Benjamin, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.

Harrod, James, in Kentucky,
238.

Harrodsburg, settled, 238.

Hawley, Joseph, on parlia-
mentary legislation, 184.

Hazard, Samuel, plan for
colony, 227.

Hemp, trade, 60, 134.

Henderson, Richard, Transyl-
vania, 239.

Henry, Patrick, success at bar,
97; parson's cause, 98-101;
and Stamp Act, 142 — 145;
committee of correspondence,
257; in Continental Congress,
287, 290; bibliography, 334,
342.

Hillsborough, Lord, colonial
secretary, 188; and Massa-
chusetts circular letter, 189;
andVandalia, 231; on Town-
shend acts, 243.

352 PRELIMINARIES

OF REVOLUTION

Hood, Zachariah, stamp officer,
resigns, 153.

Hopkins, Stephen, and Stamp
Act, 132 ; and Gas pee af-
fair, 252 ; in Continental
Congress, 287; bibliography,
334-

Houston, James, stamp officer,

resigns, 153.
Howard, Martin, on colonial

rights, 133; mobbed, 153.
Howe, Sir William, joins Gage,

306.

Hughes, John, stamp officer,

137; resigns, 153.
Husband, Hermon, Regulator,

222.

Hutchinson, Thomas, chief- jus-
tice, 75, 76; writs of as-
sistance, 81; and sugar act,
1 14; and Stamp Act, 125, 140;
riot against, 152; acting
governor, 202; on soldiers in
Boston, 203; and assembly,
245-247; governor, 248; in-
come-tax veto, 248; on com-
mittees of correspondence,
256; on supremacy of Parlia-
ment, 259; letters, 260-265;
on Townshend duties, 266;
on military preparation,
271; superseded, 272; bibli-
ography, 332; bibliography
of letters, 344.

Impressment in Boston, 193.

Independence, predicted, 7-9,
18; not apprehended (1755),
17; desire disclaimed, 117,
131, 186, 297, 298; suggested
(1765), 150; colonies accused
of desiring, 188, 198; S.
Adams desires, 266; English
suggestion, 272; bibliography
of early spirit, 340.

Indians, control under Albany
plan, 226; proclamation line,
229, 230; leave Kentucky,
23°> 235; cessions, 231, 239,

240; in Southwest, 234;

Dunmore's war, 241.
Indigo trade, 60.
Ingersoll, Jared, stamp officer,

137; resigns, 153.
Ireland, condition (1763), 22;

and navigation acts, 53,
Iroquois, Fort Stanwix treaty,

231.

Jackson, Richard, Pennsyl-
vania agent, 127.

Jay, John, in Continental Con-
gress, 287, 293, 295.

Jefferson, Thomas, in house of
burgesses, 200; committee of
correspondence, 257; resolves
(1774), 285.

Jenyns, Soame, on Stamp Act,

134-

Johnson, Augustus, mobbed,
153-

Jones, N. W., speakership, 249.

Judiciary, status in England
(1763), 25; English criminal
code, 38-40; colonial ad-
miralty courts, 73, 84, 102,
103, 105; tenure of colonial
judges, 85-87; appeal to
king, 130; salaries of judges,
royal control, 183, 184, 248,
249; trial in England, 199-
201, 257, 275; North Caro-
lina, 224.

Jury trial, right denied, 73, 105;
right asserted, 156.

Kalm, Peter, on French in
America, 7.

Kentucky, Indians leave, 230,
235; settlement, 237; Tran-
sylvania, 238-241; county in
Virginia, 241.

Knox, William, stamp officer,
138.

Laud, Archbishop, and colo-
nial bishops, 208.
Lee, R. H., in house of bur-

INDEX 353

gesses, 200; committee of
correspondence, 257; in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.
Legislation, royal veto, 87-90,

92» 95-

Leonard, Daniel, on committees
of correspondence, 256 ; loyal-
ist, 324.

Lexington, battle, 307; bibliog-
raphy, 345.

Lincoln, Benjamin, in provin-
cial congress, 301.

Livingston, Philip, in Stamp
Act Congress, 154.

Livingston, R. R., on sugar act,

Livingston, William, in Stamp

Act Congress, 155.
Lloyd, Caleb, stamp officer,

*53-

Local government, colonial self,
44- ,

Loyalists, on colonial rights,
i33»3I4,32o; and episcopacy,
220; formation of party, 285,
316; persecuted, 296, 321 ; de-
nounce revolutionary meth-
od, 314, 315, 320; conscien-
tiousness, 315, 319; number,
316-318; divisions, 318; and
virtual representation , 320;
views and conciliation plan,
321-324 ; non - progressive,
32 y, bibliography, 337.

Lumber trade, 52, 60, 138.

Lynch, Thomas, in Stamp Act
Congress, 155.

McDougall, Alexander, and

billeting act, 245.
McEvers, James, stamp officer,

153-

McKean, Thomas, in Stamp
Act Congress, 154; in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.

Mail, private, in England, 262.

Mansfield, Lord, on colonial
rights, 165.

Manufactures, rise of colonial,

61; prohibited, 62; encour-
aged, 294.
Maryland, and Stamp Act, 129;
and Stamp Act Congress, 148;
and Massachusetts circular
letter, 191; fees controver-
sy, 251; bibliography, 330,

333-

Massachusetts, population
(1775), 20; writs of assistance,
74-82; government quarrels,
84; and sugar act, 108, 112-
115; and Stamp Act, 114, 125 ;
calls Stamp Act Congress,
145; and billeting act, 176;
Bernard as governor, 178,
201, 202; appointment of
council, 178-180; stamp-riot
compensation, 180; circular
letter (1868), 187-190, 198;
convention of towns, 196;
assembly and royal orders,
245-248; and garrison of reg-
ulars, 247; salaries of crown
officers, 248; committees of
correspondence, 255, 256; and
supremacy of Parliament,
259; and Hutchinson letters,
260-265; military prepa-
ration, 271, 301, 306; im-
peaches Oliver, 272; attitude
of king, 273; regulating act,
274; calls Continental Con-
gress, 286; Suffolk resolves,
292; resistance of regulating
act, 298 ; seizure of munitions,
299; provincial congress, 300,
301 ; royal government super-
seded, 301; declared in re-
bellion, 304; restraining act,
304, 305; Salem affair, 306;
Lexington and Concord, 307-
309 ; revolutionary govern-
ment, 311; bibliography, 329,

332, 333. 335» 345- See also
Boston.

Mauduit, Israel, Massachusetts

agent, 113.
Maury, James, parson's cause,

354 PRELIMINARIES

OF REVOLUTION

96-98; on Henry's speech,
98—100.

Mayhew, Jonathan, Stamp Act
sermon, 151; controversy,
215, 216.

Mercantile system, basis, 50;
expression, 50-62; upheld,
63; effect on colonies, 64-67,
325; administration, 66. See
also Navigation acts.

Mercer, George, stamp officer,

Meserve, George, stamp officer,

Middleton, Henry, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.

Mifflin, Thomas, in Continental
Congress, 287.

Minute-men, 301.

Moffat, Thomas, mobbed, 153.

Molasses act. See Sugar act.

Money, tobacco currency, 90;
scarcity, 223.

Montagu, Lord Charles, and
South Carolina assembly, 250.

Montesquieu, Baron de, pre-
dicts independence, 18.

Moore, Sir Henry, and billeting
act, 175.

Mutiny act. See Billeting act.

Naval stores, trade, 52, 58,
60.

Navigation acts, effect in Eng-
land, 23; (1660), 51-54; enu-
merated commodities, 52, 54,
57-59; England as staple, 54-
56, 65, 105, 109; (1663), 54;
intercolonial trade restricted,
56; bounties, 59-61, 134,
138; effect, 64-67; adminis-
tration, 66; cost, 70; evaded,
71; machinery, 72; writs of
assistance, 73-83; to be en-
forced, 102, 103; sugar act
(1764), 104-106; its effect,
106-109; protests, 109-120,
127-132; grievance, 325 ; bib-
liography, 339, 340, 342.

Navy, officers as customs of-
ficers, 103, 251; rendezvous
at Boston, 248.

Negroes, population (1763), 20.
See also Slave-trade, Slavery.

Nelson, William, and West, 234.

New England, and illicit trade,
82 ; fisheries and West India
trade, 107, 112; and episco-
pacy, 208, 209, 219. See also
colonies by name.

New Hampshire, and Stamp
Act Congress, 148; bibliog-
raphy, 329, 333.

New Jersey, and Stamp Act
Congress, 146, 148; bibliog-
raphy, 333.

New York, population (1775),
20; tenure of judges, 86;
sugar-act protest, 130, 131;
and Stamp Act Congress,
148; assembly and billeting
act, 175, 183, 185, 245; and
Association, 296, 306; re-
monstrances, 296; bibliog-
raphy, 329, 332, 333, 336.

New York City, population
(1763), 20; Stamp Act riots,
149; Drawls with soldiers,

245-

Newport customs trouble, 195.

Newspapers (1763), 15.

Nollichucky, settlement, 236.

Non- importation, agreements
(1765), 149; (1767), 185, 186,
201; Parliament condemns,
198 ; result, 244 ; discontinued,
244; Boston suggests (1774),
282; Association of 1774,
294-297, 299.

North, Lord, leadership, 188;
premier, 242; and Town-
shend acts, 243; conciliation
plan, 304, 310; bibliography,
335.

North Carolina, population
(1775), 20; sugar-act protest,
128; and Stamp Act Con-
gress, 148; war of Regula-

INDEX 355

tion, 222-225; and Watauga,
236, 237; and Transylvania,
240; excepted from restrain-
ing act, 306; bibliography,

33°. 333» 335- 0
Nugent, Robert, on Stamp Act,

164.

Ogden, Robert, and Stamp
Act Congress, 146.

Ohio Company (1749), 226.

Oliver, Andrew, stamp officer,
151; mobbed, 151; resigns,
151, 152; letters, 260-262.

Oliver, Peter, impeached, 272,

299-

Otis, James, Jr., writs of assist-
ance, 77-83; on sugar act,
1 1 2-1 14; Rights, 1 1 5-1 17;
and stamp tax, 141, 145;
in Stamp Act Congress, 155;
on representation in Parlia-
ment, 167; on circular letter,
190.

Otis, James, Sr., and chief-
justiceship, 76.

Pamphlets, bibliography of
revolutionary, 337.

Parker, John, Lexington, 307.

Parliament, responsible minis-
try, 25; Bute ministry, 29;
corruption, 29-32; represen-
tation, 33-36; supremacy
over colonies, 43, 44, 1 16, 123,
164-167, 172-174, 185, 243,
259, 321; Grenville ministry,
103 ; limitations, 112; colonial
representation, 116, 126, 134,
i3S» I56. 165-169, 320; spe-
cial colonial legislation, 156;
Rockingham ministry, 161;
Grafton-Pitt ministry, 181;
Townshend's leadership, 181;
North's leadership, 188; cen-
sures Massachusetts, 198;
approves ministerial policy,
198; advises trial in England,
199; division of Whigs, 242;

North ministry, 242; colonial
crisis (1774), 272, 273; and
colonial state papers, 297,
302, 323; favors coercion,
302; and conciliation, 303,
304; error of policy, 324;
bibliography, 333. See also
Colonies, England, Mercan-
tile system, acts by name.

Parson's cause, origin, 90-95;
trials, 95-98; Henry's speech,
98-101; bibliography, 342.

Partridge, Oliver, loyalist, 146.

Paxton, Charles, letters, 260,
262.

Pendleton, Edmund, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287.

Penn, William, plan of union,
11.

Pennsylvania, population
(1775), 20; factions, 126;
stamp-tax protest, 127; and
sugar act, 127; and Stamp
Act Congress, 148; bibliog-
raphy, 329, 333.

Percy, Lord, Concord, 309, 315.

Petition, right, 135, 190, 192,

323-

Philadelphia, population (1763),
20; society (1774), 288.

Pickering, Timothy, on number
of loyalists, 316.

Pitcairn, John, Lexington, 307.

Pitt, William, and George III.,
29; ministry, 160, 181-183;
on colonial taxation, 166;
opposes independence, 272;
and quartering act, 281; on
Continental Congress, 295;
effort for conciliation, 303;
bibliography, 334.

Poetry, bibliography of contem-
porary, 337.

Point Pleasant, battle, 241.

Politics, English, 28-32, 158,
242; standard of colonial, 44;
revolutionary parties, 140,
316; bibliography of English,

335> 34i-

356 PRELIMINARIES

OF REVOLUTION

Population, elements of colo-
nial, 19; colonial (1 760-1 780),
19 ; individual colonies (1775),
20; urban (1763), 20; Great
Britain (1763), 22; British
urban, 24.

Pownall, Thomas, on western
colonies, 227; on Townshend
acts, 242.

Pratt, Benjamin, as judge, 86.

Press, colonial newspapers
(1763), 15; rise of English,
36, 37-

Preston, Thomas, Boston mas-
sacre, 204.

Prisons, English (1763), 39.

Proclamation line (1763), pur-
pose, 229.

Providence, population (1763),
20; customs officer mobbed,
195. See also Gas pee.

Public opinion, rise of English,
36.

Quartering act, 276.

Quebec act, provisions and
purpose, 276-279; result,
279; bibliography, 344.

Quincy, Josiah, defends soldiers,
204; bibliography, 334.

Randolph, Peyton, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287, 290.

Read, George, in Continental
Congress, 287.

Regulating act, 274; resistance,
298.

Regulation war, causes, 222-
224; strife, 224; migration,
225, 236; and Revolution,
225; bibliography, 339.

Religion, English conditions
(1763), 38; phase of Revolu-
tion, 206, 207, 219-221; in-
tolerance, 228; Quebec act,
276, 279. See also Church
of England.

Representation, parliamentary,
3 3-3 6 ; and taxation, 111,

112, 116, 126-130, 144, 156,
186, 320, 322; virtual, 134,
320; colonial, in Parliament,
135, 156, 165-169; Quebec
act, 278.

Requisitions, colonial, 127, 136.

Restraining act, 304-306.

Revenue from colonies, pro-
posed, 16, 71, 102-104, 122;
and mercantile system, 64;
made necessary, 183; under
Townshend acts, 242.

Revere, Paul, alarm, 307.

Revolution, American, begin-
ning, 3; discipline for, 4;
stages, 4; primary cause, 47,
65-67; social and economic
phases, 68, 11 8- 120; unique-
ness, 69, 313; prelude, 70;
principles involved, 112; re-
sponsibility for, 136; crisis of
impending, 199, 299, 300;
religious cause, 206, 207, 219-
221; and war of Regulation,
225: military p rep aration ,
271, 297-299, 301, 306; out-
break, 307-309; common
cause, 309, 315; siege of
Boston, 309 - 311; Ticon-
deroga, 3 10 ; a political move-
ment, 313; conditions of
development, 314; justifica-
tion, 324-326; character of
leaders, 325; bibliography of
preliminaries, 327-337. See
also Colonies.

Rhode Island, and sugar act,
109; protests (1765), 132;
and Stamp Act Congress,
147; mobs, 195; Gaspee af-
fair, 251-253, 257; bibliog-
raphy, 329, 332, 333.

Rice trade, 59, 138.

Rights, civil, English (1763),
37-40; colonist, Otis on,
80, 1 1 5-1 17; jury trials, 105,
156; as Britons, m, 112, 155;
loyalist views, 133, 322;
petition, 135, 190, 192, 323;

INDEX

357

trial over-seas, 199-201, 257;
declaration (1774), 293. See
also Representation.
Robertson, James, at Watauga,

235-

Rockingham, Marquis de, min-
istry, 161; fall, 181; bibliog-
raphy, 335.

Rodney, Caesar, in Stamp Act
Congress, 154; in Continental
Congress, 287.

Romney at Boston, 193, 194.

Ruggles, Timothy, loyalist, 146;
in Stamp Act Congress, 154.

Rutledge, Edward, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287, 293.

Rutledge, John, in Stamp Act
Congress, 155; in Continental
Congress, 287.

Salaries, payment of colonial,
86, 122, 123, 183, 248.

Salem affair, 306.

Scotland, representation, 35.

Scott, J. M., suggests indepen-
dence, 150.

Seabury, Samuel, loyalist, 324.

Seeker, Thomas, and colonial
church, 212, 215.

Servants, indentured (1775),
20; criminals, 21.

Seven Years' War, results, 3.

Shawnee Indians, leave Ken-
tucky, 230.

Shenandoah Valley, settled, 226.

Sherlock, Thomas, and parson's
cause, 93 ; and colonial church,
214.

Sherman, Roger, in Continental
Congress, 287.

Ship-building, 61, 65.

Shirley, William, on indepen-
dence, 17; proposes tax on
colonies, 71, 122.

Slave-trade, English, 40, 41;
extent, 41; royal veto on
impost, 89; royal order
against obstruction, 250; dis-
continued, 294.

Slavery in England, 40.
Smith, Francis, Concord, 307-

3°9-
Smuggling, 71.

Social conditions, results of
French war, 6, 10, 15;
ignorance of social laws, 21;
corruption in England, 29-
32, 45; English criminals, 38-
40; slavery and slave-trade,
40-42; colonial, 44-46; of a
colonist, 47, 69; phase of
Revolution, 68; North Caro-
lina, 222-224; elements of
progress, 313, 325; bibliog-
raphy of English, 335; of
American, 337. See also
Church of England.

Society for Propagating the
Gospel, 211, 215.

Sons of Liberty, activity, 149.

Sources, on period 176 3- 1775,
331-337; on parson's cause,
343; on Stamp Act, 343; on
Townshend acts, 343; on
coercive acts, 344; on con-
gresses, 345.

South Carolina, and stamp tax,
128; and Stamp Act Con-
gress, 147; and royal orders,
249; bibliography, 330, 335.

Southwest, Ohio Company
(1749), 226; Indians retire
(1764), 230; Indian tribes,
234; Watauga settlement,
235-237; pioneer govern-
ments, 237-240; settlement
of Kentucky, 237; Transyl-
vania, 238-241. See also
West.

Sovereignty of Congress, 289,
290, 311.

Stamp Act, proposed, 103, 104;
first reception of proposal,
115, 118; Grenville's method,
124; protests, 125-133; de-
fence, 133-135; protests
ignored, 135; passed, 135,
136; provisions, 137; officers,

358 PRELIMINARIES

OF REVOLUTION

137; palliatives, 138; re-
ception, 140-142; Virginia
resolutions, 142-145; call for
congress, 145-148; passive
resistance, 148; active re-
sistance, 149-15 1 ; riots, 151-
154; officers resign, 153;
nullified, 153, 154; congress,
154-157; English opinion,
162, 163; repeal, 164-172;
Franklin on, 1 69-171; effect
of repeal, 174; question of riot
compensation, 178, 180; bib-
liography, 343.

Stanwix, Fort, treaty, 231.

Suffolk resolves, 292.

Suffrage in England, 33-36.

Sugar, trade, 52, 57, 71, 75, 113.
See also Sugar act.

Sugar act (1733), 59,66; (1764),
104-106; effect, 106-109; pro-
tests, 109-118, 127-132; im-
portance, 1 1 8-1 20; bibliog-
raphy, 339.

Taxation, on colonies proposed
16, 17, 121; and representa-
tion, in, 112, 116, 126-130,
144, 156, 186, 320, 322; in-
ternal and external, 116, 121,
126-130, 164-167, 171, 182,
184; and requisitions, 127,
136; parliamentary right as-
serted, 123, 164-167, 172-
174, 244; burden in England,
124; origin in colonies, 177;
in North Carolina, 223; mis-
take of parliamentary, 324.
See also Stamp Act, Tea,
Townshend acts.

Tea, tax, 183, 243, 244; draw-
back and cheapness, 184,
267, 268; reason for retain-
ing tax, 266; non-importa-
tion, 268; attempt to force
importation, 268; resistance,
269; Boston tea-party, 269-
271; bibliography, 344.

Temple, Earl, and Pitt, 160.

Temple, John, and Hutchinson

letters, 264.
Tennessee. See Southwest.
Thacher, Oxenbridge, writs of

assistance, 76,77; Sentiments,

Ticonderoga, captured, 310.

Tilghman, Edward, in Stamp
Act Congress, 154.

Tobacco, trade, 52, 53, 56-58;
currency, 90.

Town - meetings forbidden in
Massachusetts, 275, 280.

Townshend, Charles, colonial
policy, 102, 122, 182; leader-
ship, 181; acts, 183; death,
188.

Townshend acts, 183; effect,
184; opposition, 185-187;
Massachusetts circular letter,
187-192; failure, 242; partial
repeal, 243, 244; bibliog-
raphy, 343. See also Tea.

Transylvania, 238; government,
239; fate, 240.

Travel (1763), 15.

Treason, trial over-seas, 199-
201.

Treaties, Fort Stanwix, 231.
Tryon, William, and Regulators,
224.

Tucker, Josiah, advises separa-
tion, 272.

Turgot predicts independence,
18.

Union, unconscious prepara-
tion, 4; no sentiment for, 8,
15; effect of French war, 10,
14, 15; early plans, 10-13;
Albany plan, 13, 14, 226;
sentiment fostered (1764),
109, in, 114; Stamp Act
Congress, 145-148, 154-157;
Massachusetts circular letter,
187, 191; committees of cor-
respondence, 256-258; effect
of coercive acts, 284; Gallo-
way's plan, 292; beginning

INDEX

359

of federal, 295; common
cause, 309; bibliography, 340.
See also Continental Con-
gress.

Van, Charles, on coercive

acts, 280.
Vandalia, 231-233.
Vergennes, Comte de, predicts

independence, 18.
Veto, royal, in colonies, 87-90,

.9 2.> 95-

Virginia, population (1775), 20;
and royal veto, 87-89, 92,
95; and slave-trade, 89, 250;
tobacco currency, 90; par-
son's cause, 91-101; and
stamp tax, 129; Stamp Act
resolutions, 142-145; and
Stamp Act Congress, 148;
and Massachusetts circular
letter, 187; protest (1769);
200; non-importation, 201,
opposes episcopacy, 220;
Shenandoah Valley settled,
226; attitude towards West,
233, 240, 277; intercolonial
committees of correspond-
ence, 257; and coercive acts,
285; recommends a congress,
285; provincial congress, 286;
bibliography, 330, 333.

Walpole, Horatio, on colo-
nial church, 214.

Walpole, Sir Robert, and colo-
nial church, 212.

Walpole, Thomas, Vandalia, 231.

Warren, Joseph, paper, 256; on
committee of safety, 306.

Warrington, Thomas, parson's
cause, 96.

Washington, George, in Con-
tinental Congress, 287; on
independence (1774), 297;

offers to raise force, 297;
commander - in - chief, 311;
bibliography, 334.

Watauga, settlement, 235, 236;
jurisdiction, 236; govern-
ment, 237; part of North
Carolina, 237.

Wedderburn, Alexander, and
Franklin, 264; on Quebec act,
278.

West, interest in, awakened,
226; Franklin's colonial plan,
226; Pownall's plan, 227;
Hazard's plan, 227; Charlo-
tiana, 229; proclamation line
(1763), 229; Fort Stanwix
treaty, 231; colonial schemes
(1766), 231; Vandalia, 231-
233; British attitude towards
settlement, 233 ; Virginia's at-
titude, 233; importance of
Dunmore's war, 241; ad-
vantage of possession, 241 ;
Quebec act, 276-279; bibliog-
raphy, 328, 338. See also
Southwest.

West Indies, slave-trade, 41;
trade, 52, 71, 83, 105-107;
bibliography of trade, 339.

Whately, Thomas, Hutchinson
letters, 260.

Whately, William, Hutchinson
letters, 264.

White, Alexander, parson's
cause, 96.

Wilkes, John, contest, 37;
colonial aid, 250; success,
302.

Writings of statesmen, bibliog-
raphy, 334.

Writs of assistance, nature, 73;
use in colonies, 74, 82; case,
76-83; abolished in England,
83; legalized, 183; bibliog-
raphy, 342.

END OF VOL. VIII.